HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Teikagei v Crown	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	6 October 2022	
		
Parties: 	Amos Teikagei, Lynton Teikagei, Chris Saoika v Crown	
		
Date of hearing: 		
		
Court file number(s): 	116 of 2022	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Maina; PJ	
		
On appeal from:	Magistrate Court	
		
Order:	I am not satisfied with the grounds and submissions on the application by the applicant, seeking an order to permanent stay the current trial at the magistrate court on the consolidated Criminal Cases No. 297/21, 316/21, 317/21, 318 and 632/21 and therefore the application is dismissed.
The DCM or Magistrate Court to continue hear the case of consolidated Criminal cases No. 297/21, 316/21, 317/21, 318 and 632/21.	
		
Representation: 	Ms Ramo for the Applicants
Kelesi E A for the Respondent 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Evidence Act 2009 S 40	
		
Cases cited:	DPP v Humphrey [1977] AC 146	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 116 of 2022

AMOS TEIKAGEI, LYNTON TEIKAGEI, CHRIS SAOIKA 

V

CROWN 

Date of Ruling: 6 October 2022

Ms Ramo for the Applicants 
Kelesi E A for the Respondent 
RULING 
Maina PJ:
The applicants seek an order to permanent stay the proceeding of what has been described in the application and submission as consolidated Criminal Cases No. 297/21, 316/21, 317/21, 318 and 632/21. These cases relate to charges of public violence and currently a trial proceeding is at the Magistrate Court.
Grounds
Applicant alleged that the proceeding are abuse of the process on the two grounds that:
1.	The arrest and prosecution of the applicants were done for an ulterior purpose and that is for the person interest of Eddie Peseka.
2.	The applicants are or will be unfairly prejudiced and denied for a fair trial as the guilty plea of Paul Mosten has serious implication for the applicants Amos Teikagei and Chris Saoika as it would suggest both applicants are equally guilty. The Magistrate Court or DCM who has partly heard the trial for the applicants and also heard the sentencing submission for Paul Mosten would be unfairly prejudiced to them.
Background
PPC Renbel Eddie Peseka and the applicants had a dispute over landing of the logging operation in West Rennell. The logging company was allegedly invited by complainant Peseka who is the brother of Amos Teikagei and had landed their logging machines at Kanava’eha pond which the applicant Amos Teikagei claim objected and ownership of the pond area. The applicant went to the pond and demanded the company and the invitees to leave the place. 
Mr. Paul Teikagei who is Amos Teikagei’s son brought 5 men from Malaita in a land cruiser to involve in the dispute but they were stopped by the Police. Three of them were arrested and brought to Tingoa Police Station while two escaped. The situation escalated with physical confrontation or threat and violence between the parties.
Later, the Police Patrol Boat Gizo arrived with PRT officers and arrested the applicants and others. They were then flown to Honiara and formally dealt or charged with offences relating to the incidents.
This application comes to the court amidst and when the trial is currently held at the Central Magistrate Court for the three applicants of the offences related to the incidents allegedly committed by them.
Issues
Whether the current trial of the applicants in the consolidated Criminal Cases No. 297/21, 316/21, 317/21, 318 and 632/21 is an abuse of process and require the courts’ order of permanent stay.
It is noted in the application and the submission by counsel of applicants that the applicants did not disclosed offences the applicants were charged and trial is conducted on and seeks the court’s order to permanent stay the trial proceeding. Applicant’s counsel Ms Ramo referred to in the application and final submission as consolidated Criminal Cases No. 297/21, 316/21, 317/21, 318 and 632/21.
For the application, the applicants relied on the sworn statement of Amos Teikagei filed on 19th April 2022.
It is not disputed that there was a dispute over the logging operation at Rennell Island with the landing of the machines at the pond and as result there was a disturbance of peace or violence between the complainant Pesekas’ side and the Applicants’ side on the island. And the trial of the cases are currently before the court at the Magistrate Court.
Applicants counsel submits that the trial proceeding is improper and would not be fair to her clients as it was done for the interest of Peseka. It is claim that the Police initiated this case for improper purposes or when they acted on the interest of Peseka and such is an abuse of process.
It is submitted by the applicant counsel that Paul Mosten who was arrested for the offences for the incidents had guilty plea and that will be unfairly prejudiced and denied for a fair trial for Amos Teikagei and Chris Saoika. As the counsel put it “would suggest both applicants are equally guilty”.
Further the trial proceeding is before the Magistrate Court or Deputy Chief Magistrate (DCM) would not proper of fair as he has partly heard the trial and had heard the sentencing submission for Paul Mosten who had pleaded guilty.
This court has the inherited jurisdiction to grant an interim or conditional stay on whatever reasons that are brought to the court. However, for the permanent stay the principles is a referred to by the Counsel Kelesi for the Crown in the case DPP v Humphrey [1977] AC 146 that it should not be taken unless the court is satisfied that continuation of the prosecution is oppressive, vexation and inconsistence with the recognized purpose of the administration of criminal justice and therefore constitute an abuse of the process of the court. 
To justify the ground of abuse of process, the applicants need to show the evidences that the trial and the magistrate’s conduct of the trial will result an abuse of process with no relieve under the law.
I adopt the principles in the DPP v Humphrey case for this case. The applicants will have all the opportunity in law to plea of not guilty which they did, defend the case with cross-examination of the Crown witnesses and giving evidences for their defences. The appellant if convicted would have all the means to appeal to the court of appeal. These process is available to the all appellants and for them to claim or assume that these process will constitute an abuse of the process of the court has no merit.
It is also alleged that the complainant Peseka who was the PPC Renbel Eddie is involved in the dispute with the applicants over the landing of the logging operation machines at the log pond and the arrest of the applicants was in his personal interests or an ulterior purpose and for the personal interest of Peseka.
To justify the ground of abuse of process, the applicants need to show in evidence that the magistrate’s conduct of the trial will result to an abuse of process and there will be no relieve under the law.
It is not disputed that there was violence disturbances with threats and weapons in the dispute. With the situation, the PRT was called to assist in the disturbances. The PRT came and later the applicant Amos Teikagei with others were arrested and brought to Honiara. The trials for the offences is being heard and before the Magistrate Court.
On the ground that the applicants will be unfairly prejudiced and denied for a fair trial with the plea of guilty of Paul Mosten is not justified and no basis. It is so as for the criminal case before the court, the onus is on Crown proof it case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant.
Notably the law in section 40 of the Evidence Act 2009 is clear on such the situation or circumstances. The offender jointly charged with an offence is competence and compellable witness for the prosecution if they decide to call him or her.
I am not satisfied with the grounds and submissions on the application by the applicant, seeking an order to permanent stay the current trial at the magistrate court on the consolidated Criminal Cases No. 297/21, 316/21, 317/21, 318 and 632/21 and therefore the application is dismissed.
The DCM or Magistrate Court to continue hear the case of consolidated Criminal cases No. 297/21, 316/21, 317/21, 318 and 632/21.
THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge