HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 99 of 2002

REGINA

-V-

DAVID RUNI HARO

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ), at Gizo.

Date of Hearing: 2, 3, 5, 10 & 11th June 2003
Date of Judgment: 11th June 2003

H. Kausimae for the Prosecutions
D. Tigulu for the Accused

(MURIA, CJ): The accused David Runi Haro is charged with the murder of Mesa Bero on 8th August 2000 at Rano Village, Rendova Island, Western Province, contrary to section 2000 of the Penal Code. He pleased not guilty to the charge.

Brief Background

The deceased and the accused both came from Rano Village, Rendova Island, Western Province and were related to each other. The deceased was an uncle of the accused. On 8th August 2000 in the evening, between 8:00 pm and 11:00 pm, Solomon Abel (PW1), Donald Bero (PW2), Jimmy Bakuru (PW3), Mesa Bero (deceased) and the accused were al at the accused’s house drinking tea and telling stories. The accused made a cup of tea for his uncle, the deceased, and after handing him his cup of tea, the accused grabbed the deceased’s neck and squeezed it, and then threw him down to the floor of the house. Upon seeing this PW1 and PW3 struggled with the deceased, trying to free his hands from the deceased. They succeeded in removing the accused’s hands from the deceased but unfortunately the deceased died immediately as a result of the accused’s action.

The evidence

It appears from the prosecution evidence that there was no argument between the deceased and the accused prior to the incident. The suggestion from the prosecution is that the accused killed that deceased in the circumstances amounting to murder. All that appeared to have been said by the accused to the deceased was that he (deceased) ‘spoiled’ him in custom (a belief that one’s illness, or fate or curse or bad omen was due to custom spell or witchcraft). There was evidence from PW1 and PW3 that immediately after he was freed from the deceased, the accused was in possession of a knife which he intended to use on anybody. This made PW1 and PW3 ran away.

There is also evidence from the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the accused had been behaving strangely prior to 8th August 2000. The evidence of PW1 suggests that the accused, prior to the incident, said that he would kill himself, and that his behaviour in the week prior to the killing, had been abnormal. Again the same witness also said that the week before the incident, the accused disappeared into the jungle for no reasons and that a search had been mounted for him. He appeared again back in the village later. In his evidence, PW2 said that before the incident, he heard of the accused’s mental disturbances. On this particular evening, he and others went to the accused’s house to be with him and to keep a close watch of him because of his mental disturbances. This witness also was aware that in the past, the people would hide weapons from the accused because of his mental instability. The evidence of PW3 reiterated the accused’s premonition that he had been bewitched, declaring that three persons ‘spoiled’ him. The accused’s ROI also reflected, especially in his answers to Questions 26 and 36, his abnormal state of mind. His answers are:-

“A.26. Me think for must killim hem die first time, before Jacob and Abel by killim mi behind.
………………….
A.36. Mi like for tallem police what oloketa ia like for doim long mi before mi causim disfalla problem ia. Three falla man ia olosem 1. Abel James 2. Jacob Meni and 3. Mensament Bero ia planim for two day nao forkillim mi die. So mi no save sleep me wait nomore for what time oloketa come for killim mi. Mi think heavy to-much long disfalla plan belong oloketa ia so before oloketa killim mi by mi must killim any one of them die before oloketa takem mi that’s why mi killim Bero die.”

He also gave evidence to say that part of the reasons for going to the accused’s house that evening was to observe the accused and to stop him from doing anything that will hurt others. Eddie Funu (PW4) added also that at times the behaviour of the accused was strange and Abel James (PW5) again added that he heard of the accused’s mental problem. Jacob Meni (PW6) was one of those whom the accused believed involved in ‘spoiling’ him in custom. Even this witness knew of the incident of the accused’s disappearance into the bush earlier.

At the end of the prosecution case, the accused elected to remain silent. The defence, however, called Dr. Divi Ogaoga who gave evidence on his assessment of the accused. In fact this same doctor first saw the accused in 2000 when he was arrested and brought over to Gizo. Dr Ogaoga conceded that he was not an expert psychiatrist. However, as a professional medical doctor with some psychiatric training, he was able to examine the accused and made an assessment of his behaviour. I accept the doctor’s concession but I feel I can also accept his assessment of the accused according to his professional medical skills and training. The finding by the doctor that from the retrospective analysis of the accused’s symptoms of auditory and visual hallucinations, and persecution thoughts, he strongly suggest that the accused had a psychiatric illness at the time of the incident. Further the doctor concluded that the accused currently suffers depression.

The Onus on the Prosecution

The onus on the prosecution is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused killed the deceased in manner amounting to murder. In this regard it must be proved, on the evidence before the Court, that the accused, at time of causing the death of the deceased, had the necessary intention to cause the death of the deceased or to cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased. If at the end of the prosecution case, the court is left with a doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the accused.

The Defence

As I understand, the defence raised in this case is not that of insanity but rather that the accused was suffering from a mental disturbance or mental abnormality at the time he killed his uncle (deceased). This defence is provided for under section 203 of the Penal Code which is in the following terms:

“203. (1) Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from abnormality of mind [whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury] as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

(2) On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.

(3) A person who but for this section would be liable, whether as principle or as accessory, to be convicted of murder shall be liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.

(4) The fact that one party to a killing is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder shall not affect the question whether the killing amounted to murder in the case of any other party to it.”

The law places the onus on the defence to show on the balance of probabilities that the accused was suffering from abnormality of the mind such that he ought not to be convicted of murder: R –v- Sipiriano Haroroanimae. In considering this, defence the court is entitled and indeed bound to take into account the whole facts and circumstances of the case, including medical evidence, the nature of the killing, the conduct of the accused before, during and after the incident. The burden of excluding the defence rests with the prosecution and must do so beyond reasonable doubt.

While the evidence of the killing is uncontroverted in this case, there is in my judgment a substantial body of evidence not only from the accused’s ROI but also from the prosecution witnesses that suggests that the accused state of mind was not normal before, during and after the killing. While the suggestion by Mr Kausimae that the nature of the killing and injuries supports the view that the accused was violent and in a state of uncontrollable anger when he killed the deceased, it is equally suggestive of a person whose mind was beyond normal. Thus despite the strong assertion by Mr Kausimae in this case, my conclusion on the whole of the evidence is that the prosecution was not able to completely make me sure that it has negatived the case of diminished responsibility in this case. This has left the court with a doubt as to the guilt of the accused and the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt. The charge of murder has not been made out.

As the defence successfully raised the defence of diminished responsibility in this case, I find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Verdict:	Acquitted of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Sir John Muria
Chief Justice