Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Leong [2011] SBHC 141; HCSI-CRC 342 of 2009 (23 November 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Jurisdiction

REGINA

-v-

ROBU BOBEI LEONG

Date of Hearing: 28th September, 4th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 17th, 18th October and 15^th November 2011.
Date of Judgment: 23rd November 2011.

Mr. Kelesi and Ms. Driu for the Crown.
Mr. Holara and Mr. Barlow for the accused

JUDGMENT

Apaniai, PJ:

Introduction:

1. The accused, Robu Bobei Leong, is charged with 2 counts of rape contrary to section 136 of the Penal Code. The prosecution says that the accused raped the complainant, Ms Neisire Tabe, twice at Kakabona Beach in the early hours of the morning of 1st April 2008. The accused has denied both charges.
   
2. Since the accused has denied the charges, I must remind myself of two important principles of law. The first is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must make me sure that the accused is guilty before I can convict him of the offence. There is no obligation on the accused to prove his innocence.
   
3. The second is that, as this is a case of sexual nature, I must warn myself of the danger of convicting the accused unless the testimony of the complainant is supported by evidence from an independent source as to the matters in dispute. These matters are whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant and whether there was lack of consent on the part of the complainant to the act of sexual intercourse. The reasons for this warning are obvious. Human experience has shown that girls or women sometimes tell entirely false stories for wrong reasons and sometimes for no reason at all - stories which are easy to fabricate but very difficult to refute.
   
4. However, this does not necessarily mean that I cannot convict on the evidence of the complainant alone. If, after giving myself the warning, I am completely sure that the complainant is telling the truth, I may nevertheless convict the accused on the evidence of the complainant alone[1].
   

Elements of rape:

5. The offence of rape is defined under section 136 of the Penal Code which provides as follows:-
   

"Any person who has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman or girl without her consent or, with her consent if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind or by fear of bodily harm or by means of false representation of the nature of the act, or, in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of the felony termed rape."

6. The elements of the offence of rape therefore are whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant and whether the complainant had not consented to the act of sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is proved if it can be shown that there was penetration of the complainant's vagina by the accused's penis however slight the penetration may be[2].
   
7. In this case, the complainant says that the accused had had full sexual intercourse with her without her consent. On the other hand, the accused's case is simply that no sexual intercourse ever occurred. This being the case, if I find that no sexual intercourse occurred between the accused and the complainant, then the accused cannot be guilty of rape and must be acquitted of the charges against him. If I find that sexual intercourse occurred then the next issue is whether the complainant had not consented to such sexual intercourse.
   

Undisputed facts:

8. The events leading up to the alleged offence are that on Monday 31st March 2008, which was an Easter Monday, a volley ball competition was taking place on that day at the Multi-purpose hall in Honiara. The final game of that competition was between Arasina, a team from Fishing Village in Honiara, and Lauru, a team from Wagina.
   
9. The complainant, along with one of her aunties, Rose Kokoti Narere ("Kokoti"), and her uncle, Kirata, went in a taxi to the Multi-purpose hall in the afternoon of that day to watch that final game. At the Multi-purpose hall, they met PW2. After the game, the complainant, Kokoti and PW2 went to a house at Vura owned by Sika and John to attend a party marking the end of the games. The accused attended that party but arrived sometime later that evening. Also at the party was Etekia Teriaki ("PW3") who is a Gilbertese and was one of the Lauru players. He was also the boyfriend of PW2 and comes from Wagina.
   
10. As the party was drawing to a close, the accused invited the Lauru players to go to Top Ten and promised them free entry into the club. The players went to Top Ten and so were the complainant, PW2, PW3 and Kokoti. The complainant, PW2 and Kokoti travelled to Top Ten in the accused's vehicle which the complainant described as a forerunner.
    
11. Top Ten closed at 2am in the early morning of Tuesday 1st April 2008. Soon after the club closed, the accused and the complainant, along with PW2 and her boyfriend, PW3, and a Malaita man by the name of Henry Suimae (DW2), got into the accused's vehicle and travelled to the accused's residence at Tasahe to get hot stuff for DW2.
    
12. At Tasahe, PW2 and PW3 were dropped and went to sleep in one of the rooms at the accused's residence while the complainant stayed in the vehicle. The complainant could not go with PW2 and PW3 because, as she said, it was against their (Gilbertese) custom to go and stay with them in the room. She therefore remained in the vehicle while the accused went to get the hot stuff from his residence.
    
13. The accused did not dispute these facts up to this stage.
    

Disputed facts:

14. However, inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and that of the accused began to emerge from the time the accused returned from his residence to the vehicle with the hot stuff.
    
15. The complainant said that when the accused returned to the vehicle with the hot stuff, he said he wanted to go and buy mix for the hot stuff for his friend. He then drove off to Point Cruz with the complainant and DW2 to get mix.
    
16. The accused, however, said that at Tasahe he had asked the complainant to get off his vehicle because he did not want his wife to know that he was going around with women, adding that he had had enough problems. He said that the complainant did not want to go down from the vehicle and further said that instead of going down from the vehicle the complainant suggested that they go to the beach.
    
17. In her evidence, the complainant said nothing about the accused asking her to get off the vehicle at Tasahe neither had that issue been put to her during cross examination. If the accused is to produce evidence contradicting the complainant's evidence on such an issue as this then the complainant should have been asked about the issue during cross examination so as to give her the opportunity to comment on the issue[3]. This was not done. As such, I must reject the accused's evidence that he had asked the complainant to get off the vehicle at Tasahe. I find that the accused had not asked the complainant to get off the vehicle at Tasahe as he is now claiming.
    
18. In relation to the question whether the complainant had made any suggestion for them to go to the beach, I am satisfied the complainant did not make such suggestion. The reason why the complainant remained in the vehicle is obvious, that is, there was nowhere else for her to go that morning. She came with PW2 who shared the same room with her at her sister's house at Rove. PW2 was spending the night with her boyfriend at the accused's residence and had asked them to come back and pick her up later. The complainant said that if she were to go back to her sister's residence without PW2, her sister might get angry with her. She did not want that to happen and, of course, at the same time she did not want to reveal that PW2 was spending time with her boyfriend. Since they were coming back for PW2, the only place where the complainant could stay was in the accused's vehicle which she considered as safe because the accused was her uncle. I am therefore satisfied that the complainant never made any suggestion for them to go the beach as claimed by the accused.
    
19. The complainant further said that at Point Cruz, the accused gave some money to DW2 who then went and bought the mix. When DW2 returned with the mix, the accused told them that they would go and buy food at White River Market. In their evidence in chief, neither the accused nor DW2 said anything about the assertion that the accused told them that they would go and buy food at White River Market. I therefore accept the complainant's evidence that the accused had told the complainant and DW2 that they would go and buy food at White River Market.
    
20. The complainant however said that as soon as they reached White River, the accused did not stop to buy food as he said he would, but instead drove all the way to the beach. That assertion was not disputed by the accused nor by DW2 in their evidence. I therefore accept the complainant's evidence that after buying the mix, the accused drove all the way to the beach with the complainant and DW2 without stopping at White River to buy food as he said he would.
    
21. What then is the inference to be drawn from the accused's conduct? In my opinion, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the accused never intended to buy food at White River and that the reason for telling them to go to White River to buy food was merely a ploy to avoid any suspicion on the part of the complainant as to the accused's intentions. I am satisfied that it was the accused's intention to drive the complainant to the beach so that he could have sexual intercourse with her there.
    
22. A view was conducted at the crime scene on 3rd November 2011. The distance from Honiara city to the crime scene was quite far. It was approximately 40 minutes drive from the city. It was an isolated spot located about five or six hundred meters west of Bonegi bridge. There were no houses nearby. It was an ideal spot where sexual activities could take place in the dark without any disturbance. It was there that the accused drove his vehicle. He said in his evidence that he had been to that beach before and he knew the beach well. The complainant said in her evidence, which I accept, that she had never been to that beach before. If she had never been to that beach before, I find it very unlikely that she would suggest going to the beach as claimed by the accused.
    

Events at the beach:

23. The complainant said that the accused had sex with her at the beach twice without her consent. Her version was as follows: As soon as she, the accused and DW2 got to the beach, she went about 7 to 8 meters from the rear of the vehicle to urinate. As she was getting up and zipping up her trousers after urinating, the accused came to her from behind and asked her for sex. She responded by asking the accused if he would do that to Taima. It appears that Taima is a female first cousin of the accused.
    
24. On hearing this, the accused pushed the complainant on the shoulders which caused her to fall to the ground. She landed on her side. The accused then sat on top of her and removed her trousers and pant. The accused then inserted his finger into her vagina and moved his fingers inside her vagina. She said she felled pain and struggled and cried. She also tried to push the accused away but he was too strong. The accused then inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt him moving on top of her. She continued with her attempts to push him away and struggled and cried but without success and no one came to her assistance. DW2 was in the vehicle and could have heard her but he did not come to assist. She said the accused had sex with her for about 4 minutes. After that, she managed to push the accused away and then stood up and started looking for her trousers. At the same time, the accused went to the vehicle.
    
25. She said that as she was looking for her trousers, the accused called out to her saying her trousers was in the back seat of the vehicle. She then went and opened the back seat. At that time, she was wearing only a shirt and her pant. She could not find the trousers so the accused told her it was in the back space of the vehicle. She then climbed onto the back seat of the vehicle. She knelt onto the cushion and was looking for the trousers in the open space in the booth at the rear of the vehicle when the accused again came and pushed her onto the cushion. She fell onto the cushion. The accused then took off her pant and then forcibly had sex with her again on the back seat of the vehicle. She struggled and cried but to no avail. DW2 was still lying on the front passenger seat but did nothing to assist her. However, she could not tell whether DW2 was awake or was sleeping.
    
26. She said the time it took the accused to have sex with her in the vehicle was longer than the time taken during the first incident. She said that after the accused had finished having sex with her, he went out and then she pulled her pant up and wore it back. She felt that her pant was wet. She then told the accused she was going to report him to the police. The accused replied that he was not worried. As she was looking for her trousers, the accused called her and showed her the trousers which was hung on a tree. She went and got the trousers and wore it. At that time the accused was in the driver's seat and had started the engine of the vehicle. She then ran to the vehicle and got in because the accused had told her she might be raped if she stayed behind. She sat at the back seat of the vehicle. She felt her vagina wet and hurting. She said she was a virgin and had never had sex with any man before. She said she felt very angry with the accused for what he did to her.
    
27. On their return from the beach, the complainant said that the accused drove all the way to his residence at Tasahe where she went down to call PW2 so that the accused could drop them off at their residence at Rove. As the complainant was on her way to the residence, PW2 came out and they both went back to the vehicle. The accused then drove to Bishop Epalle junction at Rove where he dropped off the complainant and PW2. On their way to Rove, the accused told the complainant and PW2 that his wife had found out about everything and that if she asked about the events that night the complainant was to say that it was DW2, not the accused, that she went out with. This was confirmed by PW2 who was also in the vehicle when the accused told them of that plan.
    
28. The complainant said she did not tell PW2 about what happened to her during their trip from the accused's residence to the Bishop Epalle junction. She said she did not tell PW2 because she was still in shock at what the accused did to her.
    
29. The complainant also said that after she and PW2 got off at the Bishop Epalle junction, they went back to their house and called out for someone to open the door. The door was opened by her sister, Tetaware, who asked where they had been, why they were coming back so late and who dropped them off. She said it was PW2 who replied and said they were dropped off by the accused.
    
30. The complainant said she went straight to bed when they arrived and did not tell her sister about what happened at the beach because she was still in shock. She said she slept for about 1 hour then got up and had her shower. She said during her shower, she noticed blood on her pants and her vagina was hurting as she was having shower.
    
31. The complainant also said that after the shower, she got dressed in the same clothes that she wore that night and then went to work at Motor Corporation at KG VI area. She said she did not tell anyone at her work place about the incident at the beach because she was still in shock.
    
32. She said that after work, she came back straight to their house at Rove because her sister, Tetaware, had rung her and asked her to come back immediately after work. She said that on arrival, Tetaware told her that the accused's wife and the accused's sister, Mele, came looking for her. She said it was then that she told her sister about the whole incident starting with the games at the Multi-Purpose Hall, the party at Vura, going to Top Ten, going to the accused's residence at Tasahe to get hot stuff, going to Point Cruz to buy mix, going to White River and going to the beach where she was raped outside the vehicle and inside the vehicle. She said she asked her sister, Tetaware, and her husband, Mostyn, for help to open a case against the accused. Tetaware and Mostyn then took her to the Sexual Assault Unit where she reported the matter and told her story to Cathy (PW4) at the Sexual Assault Unit. She said after giving her statement, she was taken to Central Hospital for medical examination.
    
33. The accused did not deny the evidence of the complainant as to what happened after their return from the beach, including the alleged plan to lie to his wife about the events that happened that night. However, as to the allegation of sexual intercourse, the accused had strongly denied that sexual intercourse ever took place as claimed by the complainant.
    
34. His version of the events that occurred at the beach is as follows: Upon arrival at the beach, he mixed the hot stuff for them to drink. As they were drinking, he started making jokes at the complainant and chatting her up. The complainant was just smiling when he was doing that.
    
35. The complainant then asked to go and urinate. The accused followed her. He came to her as she was zipping up her trousers after urinating. He then asked the complainant if he could have sex with her. She replied that she was scared of his wife. He moved closer and hugged her and then they started kissing. While kissing, he put his hands up her shirt and touched her breasts. He then wanted to touch her vagina but the complainant did not allow him to do so. She only allowed him to touch her vagina from the outside of her jeans.
    
36. Then the accused laid her down. After laying her down, he continued sucking her breasts. He then removed her trousers and placed it close to where they were lying down. Then he again asked if he could touch her vagina. She still refused but allowed him to rub her clitoris on top of her pant only. He then pulled her pant down to her knees and then climbed on top of her. He unzipped his trousers, pulled his penis out and wanted to rub it against her vagina but as soon as his penis touched her vagina she pushed him. On being pushed, he moved to her side and continued kissing and touching her breast. It was then that his mobile phone rang so he got up to answer. It was his wife ringing. His wife asked where he was. He answered that he was coming to pick her up. At that time, the complainant got up and asked who was it that rang. The accused said it was his wife. The complainant then walked to the vehicle. The accused later followed her to the vehicle after talking with his wife. He came to her at the door of the vehicle behind the driver's seat. She asked him for her clothes. However, the accused asked to kiss her again. As he was kissing her and touching her breasts, the accused's mobile rang again. It was his wife again ringing up. She then pushed the accused away and asked that they go back to town. She also asked the accused for her clothes. He went and got the trousers and gave it to her. He then got into the vehicle and then drove back to town with the complainant and DW2. DW2 was awake when he drove off.
    

Analysis of the evidence relating to the alleged sexual intercourse:

37. The accounts of the events given by both the complainant and the accused about what happened at the beach do not match. Clearly, both cannot be right.
    
38. The only person who could have verified what really happened at the beach between the accused and the complainant is DW2. However, DW2's evidence as to what happened at the beach does not say much at all. In any event, I must say I find him to be a very unsatisfactory witness. His demeanour in the witness box and the manner in which he was answering questions show that he is not a credible witness. He does not appear to have a very good memory even as to very basic matters. For instance, he says he is a friend of the accused but could not remember or tell when he first came to know the accused or how long ago their friendship started. Also, he says he followed the accused in his vehicle with the complainant and PW2 and PW3 when Top Ten closed but did not know where they went to. It was only after further questioning that he finally admitted that they went up to Tasahe. I cannot rely on the evidence of this witness.
    
39. That leaves me with only the evidence of the complainant and the accused as regards what happened at the beach. Since both cannot be telling the truth, the question is: who is telling the truth and who is not?
    
40. I have heard the testimony of the accused. A number of things have caused me to doubt the reliability of his evidence.
    
41. First, he said he did not want his wife to think that he was going around with female because, as he said, he had had enough problems. If so, why did he agree to the complainant's suggestion (assuming that the complainant had indeed made such suggestion) to go to the beach when he knew that his wife would certainly not be happy if she found out that he went to the beach with the complainant? Certainly, that would cause him more problems. I do not think his excuse that he went to the beach in order to please the complainant is credible. I do not think he drove to the beach because the complainant had asked him to. I am sure he drove to the beach because he himself wanted to go there and the reason he wanted to go there is to be found in his statement that he thought the complainant liked him. In other words, he drove to the beach with the intention of having sex with the complainant at the beach.
    
42. Second, I do not believe that the complainant had made any suggestion for them to go to the beach. She said she had never been to that beach before. I believe her. That is confirmed by the fact that she could not identify the beach on the first few occasions that the police took her there to view the beach. In contrast, the accused said in his evidence that he knew the place because he usually went there. A trip was made by the court to the beach on the 3rd October 2011 to view the scene of the alleged crime. The beach was quite far from the city. It was beyond Bonegi river. It was about 40 minutes drive from the city. I do not believe that a person who had never been to that beach before would have made any suggestions to go there. In any event, I find it difficult to imagine that a young girl of 20 years old would have the guts to suggest going out with drunken men, one of who was a complete stranger, to a lonely beach she had never been to before in the early dark hours of the morning. I have already stated that I am not convinced that the complainant had suggested to the accused to go to the beach that night.
    
43. Third, the accused, having being caught by his wife, admitted trying to save himself by inventing a false story whereby his friend, DW2, was to be blamed for going out with the complainant that night. He was going to lie to his wife. This shows the accused's disposition to lie and in this case, I do not believe him.
    
44. These instances have caused me to doubt the evidence of the accused. However, having doubts about the truth of the accused's evidence does not necessarily mean that I must accept the complainant's evidence. The prosecution must still satisfy me to the required standard that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent by producing evidence to that effect.
    
45. In this case, the complainant said that sexual intercourse occurred while the accused had denied it. As a matter of practice, I must look for independent evidence to convince me that sexual intercourse did occur. In R v Hill[4], Lord Lane CJ, said:
    

"... in a rape case, where the defendant denies he ever had sexual intercourse with the complainant, it may be possible to prove (1) by medical evidence that she had had sexual intercourse within an hour or so prior to the medical examination, (2) by other independent evidence that the defendant and no other man had been with her during that time, (3) that her underclothing was torn and that she had injuries to her private parts. None of those items of evidence on their own would be sufficient to provide the necessary corroboration, but the judge would be entitled to direct the jury that if they were satisfied so as to feel sure that each of those three items had been proved, the combined effect of the three items would be capable of corroborating the girl's evidence."

46. So, to prove sexual intercourse, I must look for independent evidence in the form of a medical evidence, torn clothes, blood-stained clothes and injuries.
    
47. In the present case, the complainant claimed that she was a virgin before the sexual encounter so a ruptured hymen would confirm that sexual intercourse occurred. The complainant also claimed that the accused had ejaculated in her vagina. In that respect, traces of sperm in the vagina would go towards confirming sexual intercourse. The complainant also said that when having her showers in the morning, she noticed blood on her pants. The production of the blood-stained pants would also amount to confirmation of sexual intercourse.
    
48. It is here that I must say I have doubts about the reliability and credibility of the complainant's evidence.
    
49. First, the medical report (exhibit "P9"), which was prepared on 4th April 2008 and tendered into evidence by consent, is unclear in certain respects. The report said that there were no bruises on the labia and no bruises on the cervix. The complainant said in her evidence that she struggled and cried when the accused was raping her. If she had indeed struggled, one would have expected some kind of injury or bruises to be evident on her body, especially on the labia and the cervix. According to the medical report, none was found. That being the case and having regard to the fact that the medical examination of the complainant was carried out 3 days after the incident, the question is, if bruises were caused, would such bruises be still visible 3 days after the event. Those questions might have been answered had the doctor being called to testify. He was not called so those questions remain unanswered.
    
50. Second, the report also said that the hymen had already been broken but it was difficult to say when it was broken. I believe the doctor would have thrown further light on this aspect had he been called to testify. He was not called so the question remains whether the broken hymen was the result of the alleged intercourse on the 1st April 2008 or whether the broken hymen was the result of sexual intercourse prior to the 1st April 2008.
    
51. Third, the report further said that a large size speculum was inserted into the vagina with relative ease. However, the complainant said that she was a virgin before the accused raped her. If she was a virgin, does the fact that a large speculum was inserted into the vagina with relative ease mean that the alleged sexual acts on her by the accused was not the first time she had had sexual intercourse. The doctor would have thrown some light on this question. Unfortunately, he was not called to verbally testify and therefore there was no opportunity to get clarifications from him as to those questions.
    
52. Fourth, the report also said that a HVS test was carried out but showed no sign of spermatozoa to indicate recent sexual intercourse. The complainant gave evidence that the accused ejaculated in her vagina and she felt wet after the incident. Does the absence of spermatozoa mean that no sexual intercourse ever took place at all as claimed by the complainant? If sexual intercourse had taken place on the 1st of April 2008 as claimed by the complainant, would spermatozoa be still visible on the 4th of April 2008 when the medical examination was carried out on the complainant? Again, these are questions which the doctor could have clarified had he been called to give verbal testimony.
    
53. Fifth, the complainant said that she noticed blood on her pants when she was having her showers in the morning of the day of the incident before she went to work. She said that the police had taken her clothes. Unfortunately, the pants were not tendered in evidence.
    
54. All these questions have left me with doubts as to whether sexual intercourse did take place as alleged by the complainant. In R v Paul Misiata[5], Sir Muria, CJ, said:-
    

"The evidence of injuries and torn clothing are important where the issue of consent, in a rape case, is raised. Such evidence would tend towards showing resistance or force. ... It is therefore essential that the prosecution, upon whom the burden lies of excluding consent, not only lead evidence of such physical condition of the victim but must also tender material evidence of such condition".

55. In that case, there was allegation of injuries having been sustained by the victim. Although it was alleged that the victim was treated for those injuries and that medical records were kept of the treatment administered to her, those medical records were not produced to confirm the injuries. The court dismissed the charge.
    
56. Apart from the above factors, there are also certain aspects of the prosecution evidence which have added further doubts to my mind as to the truthfulness of the complainant's evidence.
    
57. The first is the absence of any complaint by the complainant to PW2 about the alleged rape on her by the accused. Although PW2 said in her evidence that after their return to Tasahe from the beach she noticed that the complainant was looking sad and was swearing in Gilbertese language, the complainant did not tell her about the alleged incident at the beach. PW2 said that during their trip from Tasahe down to Rove, the complainant simply remained quiet in the vehicle and said nothing about the incident. Even when they were in the privacy of their room at their residence at Rove after being dropped off by the accused and DW2, the complainant did not tell PW2 about the incident. PW2 said that it was not until in the morning, when the accused's wife, Trisha, and Mele came and asked for the complainant, that she realised that something must have happened between the accused and the complainant.
    
58. Furthermore, while PW2 said that on their arrival at their Rove residence she heard the complainant swearing and crying and saying that she was no longer a young girl, the complainant herself said nothing to that effect in her testimony. Even if it was true that the complainant was distressed as claimed by PW2, I do not think I can attach any weight to the complainant's distressed condition. The condition might have arisen as a result of the complainant feeling guilty for having stayed out too long with the accused and DW2 or it could be that the complainant was worried because the accused wife had found out about their trip to the beach or it could be due to other reasons.
    
59. The second is that the complainant did not tell her sister, Tetaware, about the incident at the first opportunity. Tetaware came to know about the incident only when the accused's wife and sister came to their house and started asking for the complainant.
    
60. The third is that, despite the fact that the complainant threatened to report the accused to the police, she never did. Instead it was the complainant's sister and her husband who reported the matter to the police on 2nd April 2008 (see exhibit "P2"). It was also the police who went and fetched the complainant at Motor Corporation to give her statement to the police on the 3rd April 2008. It was also the police that took her for medical examination at the Central Hospital on the 4th April 2008. This is in contrast to her evidence where she said that it was her sister, Tetaware, and her husband, Mostyn, who took her to the Sexual Assault Unit where she reported the matter and told her story to Cathy (PW4) at the Sexual Assault Unit and where she further said that after giving her statement to the police she was then taken to Central Hospital for medical examination.
    
61. Looking at these circumstances and the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence in total, I am left with doubts as to the truthfulness of the complainant's evidence that sexual intercourse did occur as alleged by her.
    

Finding:

62. As I said earlier, I may convict upon the complainant's evidence alone if I am completely sure that the complainant is telling the truth. Unfortunately, in this case, I am not completely sure that the complainant is telling the truth. It follows therefore that I am not satisfied to the required standard that sexual intercourse had occurred between the accused and the complainant and, hence, I find the accused not guilty of the charges against him. I acquit the accused of both charges.
    

THE COURT

_______________________
James Apaniai
Puisne Judge

^[1] R v Iroi Unrep. Criminal Case No. 17 of 1991; R v Gere [1980/81] SILR 145.
^[2] R v Sisiolo CRC No. 5 of 1998
^[3] Brown v Dunn (1894) 6 The Report 67 (HL)
^[4] (1988) 86 CrAppR 26, at p. 30-31
^[5] CRC No. 35 of 1995, at pp. 4-5.