CRC No 010, 2000, HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No 010 of 2000

REGINA

-v-

JEFFREY TEAVA AND OTHERS

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.) 
Criminal Case No. 010 of 2000 

Hearing: 19th February 2001 
Ruling: 19th February 2001 

F. Mwanesalua for DPP, for Prosecution 
P. Watts for First Accused & Fifth Accused 
Second, Third, Fourth & Sixth Accused in person 

RULING

MURIA CJ: The learned Director of Public Prosecutions now asks for an adjournment of this case to May this year. The reasons advanced for the application are that:-

1. public officers who are witnesses in the case are still on unpaid leave and unsure as to when they will return to work, 

2. the Government is experiencing financial difficulty, and 

3. the short notice for today’s hearing does not enable the prosecution to proceed with its case at this hearing. 

With respect, all those reasons advanced by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions are not acceptable to justify the delay in of prosecuting this case by the prosecution. The non-availability of the public servants in their offices cannot be considered a justification for not proceeding with the prosecution of this case. Whether they are in their offices or not they can be called to give evidence if they are witnesses. The lack of fund by the Government is again a lame excuse for not proceeding with this case. We all experience the effect of the financial difficulty which the Government is facing at the present. But the Government machinery is still functioning. A little effort from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would no doubt produce the necessary means to get the prosecution of this case going. With regard to the suggestion that this is a short notice to the prosecution to deal with this case, I do not accept that. Had the prosecution been attending the previous hearings, they would realise that more than ample opportunities have been given to the prosecution to deal with this case. 

The learned Director of Public Prosecutions now finds himself in a position of not being able to proceed with this case, simply because the solicitors in his office have been inattentive to the prosecution of this case. Despite notices of hearings sent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions previously, lawyers in that office for some reason or other, never turned up in court, except for the one occasion when Mr Jack Faga attended the hearing.

The Constitutional obligations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions are taken care of by the Attorney General in the absence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Adequate arrangements could have been done to assure the functions of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions continue.Obviously that has not been done in this case.

These accused have been coming to court to attend the previous hearings. Their rights under the Constitution must also be protected. To continue to prolong this case while the prosecution goes about preparing to take measures to prosecute the case, cannot be said appropriate to be and certainly, not acceptable. 

Having said all that, I appreciate the position which the learned Director of Public Prosecutions had faced, both personally and in his official capacity. But the court must also bear in mind the rights of the accused. 

I exercise the court’s discretion in this matter and I will grant the learned Director of Public Prosecutions who is the person actually taking carriage of the case, one last chance to prosecute this case. But it will not wait until May this year. These accused are entitled to have the case against then dealt with speedily and fairly. 

I will grant 14 days adjournment. This case must proceed on Monday 5th March 2001. Failure to do so, this case will be struck out. There will be no further adjournment of this case.

(Sir John Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE