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

Ramoau v Regina [2016] SBHC 22; HCSI-CRC 496 of 2015 (25 February 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
KOUHOTA, PJ
CRC No. 496 of 2015

FRANCIS RAMOAU

V

REGINA

Date of Hearing: 25 February 2016
Date of Ruling: 25 February 2016

Mr George Gray for the applicant/Accused
Mrs Suifasia M for Respondent/Crown

RULING ON AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL

KOUHOTA J

1. This is an application for bail by the accused, Francis Ramoau. He was charged with Murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code. It is not clear on the records when the applicant (Accused) was arrested but the records shows that he has been remanded in custody since 30th June, 2015 and committed for trial to the High Court after a preliminary inquiry on 3rd of August, 2015.
2. The sworn statements in support of this application were filed in Court last yesterday on 24th February, 2016. The three sworn statements were made by Chief Damaso Roko and Moses Vataragini, a catechist and Rokson Loa, of Tamboko village, West Guadalcanal. No reason in support of why the accused should be released on bail was contained in the sworn statements but Mr Roko and Mr Vataragini merely stated that they knew the applicant and are willing to stand surety for him. The sworn statement by Mr Rockson Loa related to the notice of alibi recently filed in court.
3. Bail is a right guaranteed under the Constitution and section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been said on the numerous occasions by the Courts that in determining whether to grant bail or not, the prime consideration is whether the accused will turn up in Court for his case or trial. The authorities on this are well settled in this jurisdiction. In Taisia v DPP Criminal Case No. 226 of 2001, His Lordship, Kabui J states:

"The test to be applied is whether or not is probable that the accused will appear in Court on the trial date. The test is applied by considering factors such as the nature of the allegation against the accused, the nature of the evidence supporting the accusation, the seriousness of the penalty that may result upon conviction and the availability of sureties as the case may be".

4. So while the prime consideration is whether the accused will turn up for his trial; other facts should also be taken into consideration. In Kwaiga v Regina Criminate Case No. 333 of 2004, His Lordship Palmer CJ, said at page 1:

...".In murder cases, while bail may only be granted by the High Court, it is important to bear in mind the presumption of innocence and presumption of liberty reflected in a prima facie right of the accused to bail this must always be the starting point in any bail applications. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show that on the balance of probabilities, an accused should not be granted bail".

5. In the present case, the accused was charged with murder. In accordance with principles and authorities referred to above, the burden is on the Crown to show why the accused/applicant should not be granted bail.
6. It seems that the only reason advance by the Crown in opposing bail is the gravity of the offence charged. However, seriousness of the offence charged itself cannot be the only reason to refuse bail.
7. Taking into account that there is no evidence of flight risk and that two leaders of the community are willing to stand in as Surety for the applicant to ensure he attend his trial and taking into account other facts surrounding this case, I grant the application and released the accused on bail on the following conditions:
   
   1. That the accused to reside with his family at Tamboko village, West Guadalcanal and must not leave Guadalcanal Province without leave of the Court.
   2. That the accused must not interfere with prosecution witnesses;
   3. That the accused to report to Central Police Station twice a week on Mondays and Friday every week.
   4. That the accused not to leave Tamboko village between the hours of 6.00 pm and 6.00 am.
   5. That the Sureties or the accused to pay into Court a sum of $2,000.00 as security for accused attendance.
   6. That the accused should only be released if Condition 5 above is complied with.
   7. Any breach of these conditions, the conditions shall be vacated and accused to be re-arrested and taken into police custody.

THE COURT

EMANUEL KOUHOTA
PUISNE JUDGE