HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Sarani	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	1 August 2022	
		
Parties: 	Regina v Mathew William Sarani and Mari Tehila	
		
Date of hearing: 	25, 26, 27 and 28 July 2022	
		
Court file number(s): 	78 of 2022	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Lawry, PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The Accused Mathew William Sarani is not guilty of the charge of murder.
2. As the basis for his defence was that the Crown had failed to prove that he caused the death of the deceased the Court does not need to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter.  He is acquitted.	
		
Representation: 	Ms M Suifa’asia and Mr S Tonowane for the Crown 
Mr. G Gray for the Accused Mari Tehila, 
Mr F Kama for the Accused Mathew Sarani	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code S 200, S 22	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 78 of 2020

REGINA 

V

MATHEW WILLIAM SARANI AND MARI TEHILA

Date of Hearing: 25, 26, 27 and 28 July 2022
Date of Decision: 1 August 2022

Ms M Suifa’asia and S Tonowane for the Crown 
Mr. G Gray for the Accused Mari Tehila 
Mr F Kama for the Accused Mathew Sarani 
VERDICT 
1. 	On 2 January 2020 the body of the deceased was found in a cocoa plantation at Rarata Village in North West Guadalcanal. He had died of traumatic intra-thoracic bleeding brought about by blunt force trauma which also caused multiple rib fractures. Another significant contributing factor was a bleeding degloving wound. The Crown case is that he was murdered by the accused Mathew Sarani and Mari Tehila. They were each charged with murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code read together with section 22 of the Penal Code.
2. 	The accused Mari Tehila was found to have no case to answer. The trial continued against Mathew Sarani. There is no evidence that the accused formed a common intention with Mari Tehila to prosecute an unlawful act. In the circumstances of this case, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Mathew Sarani caused the death of the deceased by and unlawful act with malice aforethought. So far as the cause of death is concerned the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who inflicted at least some of the blunt force trauma that contributed to the death of the deceased in more than a minimal way.
3. 	The prosecution case is dependent on the evidence of PW5. His evidence is that on 1 January 2020 he was taking part in celebrations for the New Year at his home in Rarata village. Food was prepared and eating commenced in the middle of the day. At some stage between noon and 1.00pm PW5 had an upset stomach. He went to the primary school nearby where there are toilet and bathroom facilities. He said that when he arrived at the boys’ toilet he saw a person he has identified as the accused Mathew Sarani holding a piece of wood described as a length of 4 by 1. He said the accused struck a person on the ground. He said the lighting was insufficient to identify the person on the ground. He said the light that entered the building came from under and above the door and in the small space between the walls and the roof. PW5 then said he went home. He later changed his account and said he went to nearby oil palm trees to attend to his toilet. He then went home and joined his family, apparently continuing with the festivities.
4. 	He said did not learn about the death of the deceased until he with the rest of the community went to the cocoa plantation where the body of the deceased was lying. When asked by the prosecutor how he learned of the death of the deceased he said when he saw the accused Mathew Sarani beat him with the piece of wood in the toilets. When reminded of his evidence that he could not recognize the person of the person lying on the ground, he said the person looked like the deceased.
5. 	The police arrived and commenced their investigation. He did not say anything to the police until he was interviewed 4 days later on 6 January 2020. He told the Police that the person he saw using the wood in the toilet block was Martin Sarani. He does not seem to have taken any further steps until the Police officer who had taken his statement approached him on 22 February and asked him whether it was Martin or Mathew who had used the wood in the toilet. He then said it was Mathew and explained he was confused about the name although he has said he knew him and his family well.
6. 	PW5 said he did not hear anything said about the death of the deceased in the village between when he gave his first two statements, a period of 47 days. That conflicts with the explanation he gave in his statement of 22 February 2020. His account of what was said to him by the Police officer who took his first two statements conflicts with the evidence of that Police officer. He said that the signature on the first two statements was not his. He later changed his account and said that he had signed them but had forgotten.
7. 	The Court is left with serious doubt as to whether he saw anything at all in the boys’ toilet on 1 January 2020. Had he seen what he now says he saw it makes no sense that he would return to his house and say or do nothing in relation to what he now says he saw. It makes no sense that when the Police arrived on 2 January 2020 he has not drawn their attention to the toilet at the school when the police were present taking photographs. The evidence is that the first he said to the Police was on 6 January 2020 when his first statement was taken.
8. 	I had the benefit of closely observing him when he gave evidence and noted a change in how he did so on the first day of his evidence and when he resumed his evidence the following day. I bear in mind that he had very limited education but found him to be an inconsistent unreliable witness.
9. 	Whether or not the deceased been beaten in the boys’ toilet block with the piece of wood, as PW5 said, must be considered alongside the evidence of PW7, the aunt of the deceased who saw him late in the day, possibly 5.00pm sitting beside the noticeboard beside the school. There is no evidence that he appeared to be suffering any injury at that point. The witness who saw him was on the back of a 3 tonne truck leaving the village travelling along the dirt roadway shown in the booklets of photographs produced as PE3 and PE4. The roadway next to the toilet block can be seen in PE4 photograph 4 and the noticeboard can be seen in photographs 3 and 14 of PE4 and photograph 1 of PE3. Those photos were not taken until June 2020. PW7 said she had a clear view of the deceased with nothing obstructing that view. The distance from her to where he was sitting must have been between 4 and 8 metres. As the Police waited 6 months before taking the photographs I cannot accept the prosecution submission that the bushes would have hindered the view of that PW7 had of the area around the noticeboard.
10. 	Had the deceased been beaten in the toilet block to the point described in the autopsy report, it seems likely that the police or the next persons to use the toilets would have noticed evidence that would have been left behind following such a beating. If he was beaten in the toilet block someone would need to have moved him from the block to where he was later found. That has been described as a distance of 200 to 300 metres. There was no evidence of a mature man being moved from the toilet block when that toilet block is in a village where families had come together for the New Year celebrations. Five or more families were using the toilet block but there is no evidence that anyone noticed anything unusual in the toilet block or any signs of movement found on the ground between the toilet block and where the deceased was found the following day. The only evidence of the deceased being seen following the events described by PW5 was from PW7 who saw him sitting by the noticeboard around 5.00pm.
11. 	I record that PW7 was not a witness called as part of the prosecution case. The prosecution fairly called her at the request of the defence in order that the defence might be able to cross examine her.
12. 	I find it highly unlikely that the deceased received his injuries in the toilet block at all. If he had been beaten elsewhere there is nothing to link that to the accused. The Court cannot be satisfied that the accused inflicted blows with the piece of wood that contributed to the death of the deceased.
13. 	This is a trial where the accused has exercised his right to silence. The Crown has the onus of proving each essential element beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances of this case, if there is a possibility that PW7 is correct in her evidence of seeing the deceased sitting by the noticeboard at around 5.00pm that would raise a reasonable doubt as the accused could not have been beaten in the toilet block to the point that he died of those injuries and be seen several hours later sitting where she reports seeing him.
14. 	Even if PW7 had not given evidence the state of the evidence was such that this court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused the death of the deceased or contributed to his death. It follows that the accused Mathew Sarani is found not guilty.
Order
1.	The Accused Mathew William Sarani is not guilty of the charge of murder.
2.	As the basis for his defence was that the Crown had failed to prove that he caused the death of the deceased the Court does not need to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter. He is acquitted.
By the Court
Justice Lawry PJ