High Court of Solomon Islands

1

The four accused are each charged with the kidnapping of the complainant, Urmila Devi (Ms Devi) on 14 February 1998.

2

A related charge of abduction was dismissed at the end of the Crown case on the grounds that there was no case to answer.

3

The Crown alleges that all the accused, to varying extents, participated in effecting Ms Devi’s departure from the Solomon Islands aboard an aircraft that day without her consent.

4

It is common ground that at that time Ms Devi, an Indian woman, was 22 years old. The Crown says that her parents, both then resident in Honiara, were opposed to her relationship with a Mr Stanley Vae, then a 32 year old man with whom she was living.

5

The Crown’s case is that the parents enlisted the aid of the Police and one other person to assist them in taking their daughter, Ms Devi, to Fiji aboard a flight on 14 February 1998, without her consent.

6

The Crown’s case is that the four accused, three of whom were police officers in the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force, lent that assistance.

7

It is said that they did that by in effect luring Ms Devi to her parents house on 13 February 1998 under the pretence that she would be under police protection and that she could return to where she was living at any time, reneging on that promise once she got there and leaving her at her parents house overnight on 13 February, under the guard of the fourth accused who was not a police officer; and then taking her to Henderson airport in a police vehicle the next day, and ensuring she boarded a flight to Fiji with her parents, all against her will. The Crown also relies on the involvement of one of the accused in having Ms Devi’s passport renewed on 13 February 1998 without her knowledge.

8

The defence case in broad terms is that the accused were responding to a request from the parents to assist in retrieving their runaway daughter, said to have been under 18 years of age, from Stanley Vae. The defence accepts that the accused took various steps to intervene on behalf of the parents, but says that in the final analysis the evidence falls short of establishing that the accused knew Ms Devi did not consent to leaving the Solomons with her parents. As to the involvement of some of the accused in transporting Ms Devi to the airport on 14 February 1998 and in the case of one of the accused, escorting her right through to at least the transit lounge of the airport, the defence case is that the accused police officers were responding to information received that day that Ms Devi’s partner, Stanley Vae, had threatened to be waiting with a gang for their arrival at the airport. In other words, their presence that day has to ensure that there was no trouble of that kind.

9

The defence also argues that the accused had an honest and reasonable, but mistaken belief, that Ms Devi was under 18 years of age at the time and that in all the circumstances the parents could lawfully demand that Ms Devi accompany them to Fiji. The defence rely on section 10 of the Penal Code in this respect.

10

It is very clear that from the outset of Ms Devi’s relationship with Stanley Vae, her parents were bitterly opposed to it. It appears that at the heart of their opposition was the fact that Stanley Vae was not an Indian man.

11

The opposition culminated in a meeting at the Central Police Station in 1997, where present were Ms Devi, her partner Stanley Vae, Ms Devi’s parents and a Police Inspector, Barnabas Kalisalo.

12

Ms Devi and Mr Vae were at that time living together in a separate property. The purpose of the meeting was to try and resolve matters as between the couple and the daughter’s parents. The role of the Police Inspector appears to have been as mediator between the parties.

13

At the meeting, the evidence from Inspector Kalisalo (now retired) was that the parents demanded $22,000.00 from Stanley Vae’s family before they would give approval to the relationship and to a future marriage. At that stage Ms Devi was 22 years old, and the figure of $22,000.000 was said by the parents to represent $1,000.00 for each of her 22 years of age.

14

At the meeting at the Central Police Station, it was made clear that such money was beyond the means of Mr Stanley Vae’s family, and Ms Devi’s father stated that he "buried" his daughter at that police station. I take this to mean that he was effectively wiping her from the family at that point.

15

The meeting concluded without any resolution, and Ms Devi and Stanley Vae resumed living together.

16

The evidence of Inspector Kalisalo about the meeting was not contradicted and I accept it.

17

There matters remained until the events on 13 February 1998.

18

Ms Devi gave evidence of 3 people arriving unannounced at Stanley Vae’s house during the day. Both she and Stanley Vae were there at the time

19

I am satisfied on the evidence that those 3 persons were the accused, Nathaniel (Nela) Mosese, Samuel Kalita and Redley Gilbert, and that none of these people were known to Ms Devi personally.

20

I am also satisfied on the evidence that Nela Mosese entered the house and sat down, whereas Samuel Kalita and Redley Gilbert stood on the veranda, adjoining the open door.

21

It is common ground that Nela Mosese was at the time a Police Superintendent, and that Samuel Kalita was also a police officer. Nela Mosese was his superior officer. Neither of the policemen were in uniform.

22

The evidence from Ms Devi was that Nela Mosese made it clear that he and the others were there to take Ms Devi to her parents’ house to try and resolve the differences over the relationship. Ms Devi’s evidence is further that she said she didn’t want to go as she knew her parents and that they would keep her there.

23

She gave evidence that Nela Mosese’s response was to assure her that she would be alright, that she would be under police security, and that she could walk back to the police truck at any time ie be taken back to Stanley Vae’s house.

24

On this basis she says that she agreed to go to her parents’ house, but only if Stanley came too.

25

She also gave evidence that Redley Gilbert participated in the conversation at the house and in effect confirmed the assurances given by Nela Mosese.

26

Ms Devi gave evidence that she and Stanley Vae followed the 3 men who had been at the house to a police truck situated some distance away.

27

Her evidence was that there was a fourth person waiting in the police truck. While Ms Devi and Stanley Vae didn’t know him, it is clear from other evidence and I so find that the third person was the accused, Samuel Kalita, also a police officer and holding a lesser rank to than Nela Mosese. None of the 3 police officers were in uniform.

28

Her evidence is that all 4 accused and she and Stanley Vae then drove in the police truck towards her parents’ property, with Stanley Vae sitting in the open tray of the truck.

29

She says that Stanley Vae was dropped off at a point before the truck reached her parents’ place, because her parents would not wish to see him.

30

On arrival at the parents’ house, Ms Devi’s evidence was that Redley Gilbert got out first and went into the house, that he emerged 2 or 3 minutes later at which point Nela Mosese told her to go into the house, and that she got out of the truck and was hugged outside by her younger sister, Sangreeta.

31

She stated that when she entered the house there were a number of people inside, namely, her parents, one of her aunty’s and uncle’s and their daughter, an Indian family, a brother in-law and her two sisters, and Redley Gilbert’s wife. 2 Melanesian Brothers were also said to be present.

32

She said that Nela Mosese told her that she was to stay at the house, despite her saying she did not want to stay. She said that she challenged Nela Mosese as to why he was not honouring his promise that she would remain under police security.

33

She said that his answer was that if she didn’t want to hear anything like that then she could walk back to the police truck and he would take her back to Stanley Vae’s house.

34

She said that before Stanley arrived at the house, there was talk from she thinks her mother about going to Fiji. The gist of the conversation was, she said, that her parents would be going to Fiji and that they were going to take her as well, in order that she would change her mind about living with Stanley.

35

She said this conversation took place in the house in the presence of Nela Mosese and Redley Gilbert.

36

She said that at some point at her request the police truck went to collect Stanley and brought him in the vehicle to a point immediately outside the parents’ house.

37

She said she saw the truck coming with Stanley in it, and ran outside the house towards it, but was restrained by her mother, who held her wrist firmly. At the time, she said Redley Gilbert was standing next to her "or holding my hand".

38

She went on to say that she eventually was able to move a little distance from her mother.

39

She recalled that Stanley, still in the truck, said something to the mother, and that she heard her mother say that she (Ms Devi) would not be able to go until Stanley Vae gave the family $22,000.00.

40

She says that she then said to her partner that the police officers had lied to them. She said she thinks Redley Gilbert was standing next to her when she said this.

41

She says that at that point, one of the police officers, she didn’t know who, (but that it was not Nela Mosese), said "you are wasting my time".

42

She said that Stanley Vae and the police officers then left, but the accused, Redley Gilbert, remained. The evidence was that he and his wife lived in the upstairs flat of Ms Devi’s parents’ property, which evidence I accept.

43

Ms Devi then gave evidence to the effect that she was guarded all night at her parents’ house by Redley Gilbert and his wife; the doors having been locked and the windows having mesh over them, such that she could not have climbed out of them.

44

She said that during the evening there were 2 telephone calls received from Stanley, the first to say he was still trying to raise the money and the second to say he could not.

45

She said that Redley Gilbert answered the telephone on both occasions and then handed the phone to her. She said that during the second call, she asked Stanley to be at the airport the next day to meet her.

46

She said that late that night she telephoned her aunty and uncle who had been at her parents’ property earlier that evening, and said she wanted to leave the house. She said that she was told by them that she was to stay where she was and to listen to whatever her mother and father had to say.

47

The next day, 14 February 1998, after a sleepless night, Ms Devi says that she saw the police Hilux arrive and she was taken in it to Henderson airport. She said that Nela Mosese and the same two other police officers, together with Redley Gilbert, travelled to the airport in the Hilux. She said her cousin brother also travelled in the Hilux.

48

She said she did not remember what car her parents travelled to the airport in, or who drove it.

49

On arrival at the airport, outside the terminal, she said she saw Stanley and spoke to him when she got out of the Hilux. She said Stanley told her he couldn’t get the $22,000.00 that her mother wanted, and that he was very sorry but that she would have to go.

50

She said that Nela Mosese was standing nearby, and that while she was still talking to Stanley, he took her wrist and said, "let’s go now".

51

She said that she then cried and followed Nela Mosese into the terminal, he continuing to hold her wrist.

52

She said that it was inside the terminal that she first saw her parents; that she did not check in in the conventional way or indeed at all, that she did not know who packed her luggage but it was not her; that she did not see her passport and that she never saw her airline ticket; that Nela Mosese accompanied her into the transit lounge; that during this journey, Nela Mosese said to an airport official words to the effect that "this girl has a problem"; that he continued to hold her by the wrist for the majority of the time she was in the transit lounge; that she was in the transit lounge with her parents; that when it was time to depart, Nela Mosese led her onto the tarmac by the hand and didn’t release her until she was 6 metres from the plane; that she was crying the whole time; and that she boarded the plane because she felt that she had no choice but to do that; and that the plane then flew to Fiji.

53

She said she then returned from Fiji on 22 March 1998 with her parents, lived with them for about 2 weeks, then resumed living with Stanley and subsequently married him. She said they were still living as man and wife as at the date she gave evidence.

54

She said that as at the date she gave evidence, her mother was living in Fiji, and that her father and one of her sisters was living in New Zealand.

55

Neither of the parents were called to give evidence in this case, despite being central characters to the events.

56

Ms Devi’s husband, Stanley Vae, also gave evidence. It corroborated Ms Devi’s evidence in most material respects, except of course, Stanley Vae was not able to say what occurred with Ms Devi from the time he left her parents’ property in the evening of 13 February to the time that he saw her at the airport the next day.

57

Naturally, there were a number of differences of detail in their respective versions. I say naturally because these events occurred some 9 years ago. Nevertheless, their versions were remarkably similar in most material respects.

58

Significantly, both denied the suggestion from the defence that also on 13 February, 1998, and prior to the police visit to Stanley Vae’s property as described, they had received a visit from two female police officers in relation to her parents’ unhappiness with their relationship. I will return to this point later.

59

The accused, Nathaniel Mosese, also gave evidence about the events of 13 and 14 February 1998.

60

He said that at the time, he was a Superintendent in the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force, and on duty on 13 February 1998.

61

He said that around the middle of that day he received a visit from the parents of Ms Devi. He said they came to his office at Police Headquarters, Rove.

62

He said they told him that someone had taken their daughter; that they had previously sought help about it from the Central Police Station but were told it was a civil matter; that he took this in part about being a complaint against the Police; that he took them up to the then Police Commissioner’s office in the same building but was told he was meeting with someone and was therefore unavailable, and that instead he took them to office of the Deputy Police Commissioner, one Morton Sireheti (it is common ground that he died in 2002).

63

Nela Mosese said he was present at the meeting with the Deputy Commissioner; that the parents told the Deputy that the girl was a very young girl who was under 18 years old; and that he (Nela Mosese) was instructed by the Deputy to "do what you can do" about the matter.

64

He said that he then telephoned Central Police Station, asked to speak to Inspector Kaliso, who he knew to be in charge in order to find out about the earlier approach by the parents, but that he was not there at the time. He said he spoke to someone else there who confirmed that they had dealt with the case and concluded that it was a civil matter.

65

Nela Mosese’s evidence is that he then arranged for 2 female police officers, who were sub-ordinate to him, Constables Patricia Leta and Florence Taro, to visit Ms Devi and to bring her back to Police Headquarters.

66

He said they returned about 2 hours later saying that Ms Devi refused to come back with them.

67

He said that he then decided to go himself to the house where Ms Devi was living, and that he took with him the accused Samuel Kalita and Walter Manefakale, also police officers, and on duty at the time. The evidence is, and I accept, that he, Nela Mosese, was their superior, and that they were responding to his orders.

68

He said that they first called at Ms Devi’s parents’ house to ascertain where she was living, and to ask the parents if it was alright with them if they also brought Stanley Vae with Ms Devi back to their house. He said they agreed. He said they then set off to Stanley Vae’s house, taking with them the accused, Redley Gilbert, because he knew where he lived.

69

He said that when they stopped, one of the Police Officers, he couldn’t remember who, stayed with the vehicle while the other two individuals accompanied him to the house.

70

I am satisfied on the evidence that it was S Kalita, who stayed with the vehicle, and that Walter Manefakale and Redley Gilbert, went with him to the house.

71

He said he went inside the house, where both Ms Devi and Stanley Vae were present, while the other 2 remained on the verandah by the open door.

72

He said that he told Ms Devi that he wanted to take her to her parents and help mediate the problems with her parents and work out something. He said, she initially refused to go, saying that her parents beat her, but agreed to go on the understanding that the police would accompany her.

73

He said that he and the other two who had accompanied him then went back to the truck and waited about 10 to 15 minutes before Stanley Vae and Ms Devi arrived at the truck.

74

He said that they then all proceeded to the parents’ house, dropping Stanley at his request at the entrance to their driveway (said to have been some 20 metres long).

75

He said that on arrival at the parents’ house, Ms Devi’s sisters came out and hugged her and cried with her; that he and Ms Devi went inside the house; that he noticed a lot of people in there, including 2 Melanesian Brothers and that he saw an Indian lady talking with Ms Devi.

76

He said it was his intention to talk to the parents about the whole issue, and that he was waiting for the visitors to leave before he did so. He said that about 15 to 20 minutes after going into the house, Ms Devi called out across the room to him that she wanted him to get Stanley. He said he thought the other two police officers were outside.

77

He said he and S Kalita then collected Stanley from the entrance way to the property and drove up the driveway to the house with Stanley in the police vehicle.

78

He said that when they arrived outside the house, he noticed a struggle at the door of the house, and saw Ms Devi’s mother holding onto Ms Devi; that there was screaming; that at one point, Ms Devi’s mother almost fell down; that an Indian man and one other person joined in the struggle; and that Ms Devi ultimately managed to reach the vehicle.

79

He said that when Ms Devi’s mother saw Stanley Vae sitting in the vehicle, she started screaming and yelling at him, called him a "no good man and a criminal" and said that "if he had $40,000.000 he could take her daughter "right now".

80

He said that Stanley started arguing with the mother, saying that it was not he who had taken her daughter and that her daughter had come by herself to him.

81

It was during this heated exchange that he said he shouted at them, "enough".

82

He said that by that stage, one of his officers was agitated and angry and use the words "you are wasting our time" to Stanley.

83

He said that during this altercation, Ms Devi said to him "you lied to me", and that he responded by saying that he had not yet started talking to her parents.

84

He said that he told Stanley that it was best that they left, that Stanley agreed to go, and that he and S Kalita left the property with Stanley in the police vehicle.

85

He said they dropped him off at a person by the name of Mamalone’s house, that they then realised that they had left W Manefakale at the parents’ property, and that they returned and picked him up and then all went home.

86

The next day, 14 February (which Nela Mosese thought was a Saturday), he said that S Kalita drove to his house and told him that a phone call had been received from Ms Devi’s parents. Nela Mosese did not recall whether S Kalita said that he (S Kalita) had taken the call or that another officer had received it.

87

He said S Kalita told him that the call was that Stanley had telephoned their house that morning and threatened the parents.

88

He said that he and S Kalita then drove to the office, and he then decided to drive to the parents’ house to verify the threat. He said he, S Kalita and W Manefakale then drove to the parents’ house.

89

He said that as he left the office on the way to the parents’ house, he called for some assistance, that a police vehicle attached to G Province responded to the call, and that he spoke to an Inspector Silas Karani, then and to this day a serving member of the police force.

90

He said that he told the Inspector that they had a threat at the airport; he believed that he mentioned Stanley Vae’s name during this conversation, and he thought the Inspector confirmed that he knew Stanley.

91

He says that he, along with S Kalita and W Manefakale, then took Ms Devi to the airport, all the luggage having been sitting on the driveway of the parents’ property when they arrived.

92

He also says that he did not know of the parents’ plan to go to Fiji with their daughter until their arrival at the parents’ house that day.

93

He said that on arrival at the airport, Ms Devi got out of the vehicle, spoke to Stanley outside the terminal, and he thinks he overheard Ms Devi saying to Stanley "do something, do something" or words to that effect.

94

He says that at this point the parents, who were also outside the terminal, beckoned to him for them to go inside, and that he put his hand to Ms Devi’s back and said to Stanley "that’s enough, we have to go now". He said that he then walked into the entrance to terminal with Ms Devi, following behind, the parents. He said he did not see Stanley again that day.

95

He denied at any time holding or leading Ms Devi by the wrist.

96

He said that he accompanied Ms Devi into the transit area, explaining to the Immigration Desk Officer on the way through that "we have a problem with this girl", referring to Ms Devi.

97

He says he waited in the transit lounge with Ms Devi and her parents, and when it was time for them to depart, he stood at the edge of the tarmac in a public area for the purpose of checking to see if Stanley Vae was in that area. He said he did not see him there.

98

He said that Ms Devi was obviously sad to go, but he thought the only time she cried at the airport was when she met Stanley outside, and that she was then crying on his shoulder.

99

He says that as he departed the terminal and walked towards the car, he thought he saw Inspector Karani’s vehicle parked near the Civil Aviation Office.

100

When asked in Court whether he thought Ms Devi was willing to go or not, he answered, "I think she agreed to go".

101

Finally, Nela Mosese said that it was not unusual at the time for police to get involved in this type of matter.

102

All the other 3 accused declined to give evidence in Court. All 3 made unsworn statements from the ‘dock’. All denied the charge.

103

It can be seen from the respective versions of this primary evidence that there is not a great deal of dispute as to the events which took place on 13 and 14 February 1998. To the extent that the evidence of Ms Devi, Stanley Vae and N Mosese all coincides in substance, I accept it.

104

The Crown invites me to infer from the whole of the evidence that Nela Mosese and his two subordinate officers, S Kalita and W Manefakale, along with Redley Gilbert, knew that Ms Devi did not consent to leave the Solomon Islands on 14 February 1998.

105

Knowledge of lack of consent on the part of a victim or some person legally authorised to consent on his or her behalf is an essential ingredient in the offence of kidnapping.

106

In assessing whether or not the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the question of knowledge of lack of consent, I make the following points and findings:

(a)

I accept on the totality of the evidence that Ms Devi did not in fact consent to leaving the Solomon Islands for Fiji on 14 February.

(b) (i)

I accept the evidence of Nela Mosese that he arranged for female police officers to visit Stanley Vae’s property on 13 February, and that this visit occurred prior to the visit from N Mosese and others. I also accept that the information N Mosese had received from the parents at that time was that Ms Devi was a runaway girl under 18 years old.

(ii)

His evidence in this respect was corroborated by the evidence of then Constable Patricia Leta and Florence Taro. Florence Taro, now a Detective Sergeant in the Solomon Islands Police Force, gave evidence of visiting the property that day in the company of Constable S Sisinia (also a female police officer at the time, who did not give evidence in this case).

(iii)

The upshot of Florence Taro’s evidence is that they had been instructed by N Mosese to assist in bringing back Ms Devi to her parents because the report received was that she was living with a man from Tuvalu and that the parents had said she was under the 18 years of age.

(iv)

Florence Taro said that they initially went to the parents’ house, spoke to Ms Devi’s mother who was upset and crying, then went and spoke with Stanley Vae and Ms Devi at Stanley Vae’s house about the problem, and that Ms Devi refused to leave the house. Florence Taro said that she and the others then reported this back to N Mosese.

(v)

I accept the evidence of both Florence Taro and Patricia Leta – they have no self interest in this case and appeared to have a good recall of events.

(vi)

The fact that both Ms Devi and Stanley Vae flatly denied such a visit from female police officers on 13 February 1998 is surprising, given that they appeared to have a reasonable recollection of the other significant events which occurred that day. I consider their memories in this respect to be selective, as I do not accept that they both had no recollection whatsoever of such a visit, which after all from their perspective would have been the initiator of all the subsequent events that day and the next.

c(i)

The evidence from N Mosese about attempting to gain the parents an audience with the Police Commissioner, but not being able to do so and then arranging for them to meet the Deputy Commissioner (now deceased), is also accepted by me.

(ii)

It was corroborated by the evidence of the then Police Commissioner’s staff officer, Joseph Baegolinga, who gave clear evidence and had no self interest in the matter. I accept his evidence.

d(i)

I also accept the evidence of N Mosese that on 14 February 1998, he was advised by S Kalita that the parents of Ms Devi had telephoned police that morning saying they had received a phone call from Stanley Vae that day containing a threat.

(ii)

I also accept that N Mosese with S Kalita and W Manefakale arrived at the parents’ house subsequently that day, and N Mosese was then told by the parents that Stanley Vae has threatened to have his gang out at the airport that day, and that for that reason the parents wanted protection to and at the airport.

(iii)

The reason I accept this evidence is that the existence of a threat was corroborated by the evidence of Inspector Silas Karani, who said that he learnt of this threat from a conversation with N Mosese that day and that he then proceeded to the airport with other police officers to assist if required. He said that they observed Stanley closely from their vehicle outside the terminal.

(iv)

He also said that N Mosese thanked him for his assistance out at the airport. I consider the evidence of Inspector Karani to be independent and reliable.

(v)

I make no finding as to whether or not such a phone call was ever made by Stanley Vae; he was recalled by the Crown on this point and not surprisingly, denied making any such call; but I reiterate that I accept that this was the advice N Mosese received from S Kalita that morning.

(vi)

The Crown attempted to discredit N Mosese’s evidence in this regard by first pointing out that in his evidence as to this he said that S Kalita had told him of a vague threat, and that he had only learnt of the threat being associated with the airport on arrival at the parents’ house; the Crown contrasted this with his further evidence that he called Inspector Karani and told him of the airport threat before he got to the parents’ house, which was inconsistent with his evidence that he had not then learnt where the threat was said to be staged; the Crown also said that had G Province been contacted for assistance at the point when N Mosese left his office in Rove, the officers from G Province, being much closer to the airport, would have arrived there before N Mosese (whereas the evidence was that N Mosese’s police vehicle was already there when Inspector Karani arrived at the airport).

(vii)

While there are inconsistencies, I consider that N Mosese was mistaken as to the point at which time he made the call to Inspector Karani. I consider that he made that call, and I so find, after learning of the details of the threat once he had arrived at the parents’ house. I consider that N Mosese was mistaken as to the timing of this call because the other surrounding evidence points conclusively to that call having been made at this later point in time.

e(i)

Faced with this independent and corroborative evidence called by the defence for N Mosese, Mr Little was forced to put the Crown case on the basis that N Mosese took the steps to involve other police officers (against whom no criticism can be levelled), namely the Deputy Police Commissioner, the female police officers and the Police officers from G Province, to in effect disguise his criminality and to give his actions the cloak of authority.

(ii)

I do not accept that N Mosese set about creating such an elaborate scheme so as to effect or assist in the kidnapping of Ms Devi; the evidence from Ms Devi was that though she had seen N Mosese before 13 February 1998, he was not well known to her; the evidence, as a whole, did not establish a close prior connection between N Mosese and Ms Devi’s parents or family; why, then, would N Mosese go to such elaborate lengths, involving various different sections of the police force, over the period 13 and 14 February in order to knowingly assist in Ms Devi’s unlawful departure from the Solomon Islands?

(iii)

In my view the Crown did not have a sufficient answer for this, and could point to no likely motive on the part of N Mosese arising from the evidence.

(iv)

The Crown relied heavily on evidence from Ms Devi and Stanley Vae to the effect that at her parents’ house on 13 February, Ms Devi said to Stanley Vae in the hearing of N Mosese that the Police had tricked her, and also her evidence that she said directly to N Mosese that he had lied to her. N Mosese in his evidence accepts that Ms Devi accused him of lying to her. The Crown also point to evidence from Stanley Vae of Nela Mosese saying to him "things have changed now" or word to that effect.

(v)

Importantly, Ms Devi’s evidence was also that on challenging N Mosese about his promise, N Mosese replied with words to the effect that she could walk back to the Police truck at any point and he would take her home. I accept Ms Devi’s evidence on this point, and its significance is that despite the other verbal exchanges to which I have referred it indicates that it was not the intention of N Mosese to permit Ms Devi to be held against her will.

f

I find from the evidence as a whole that Ms Devi was under considerable pressure to accede to her parents’ demands that she return to Fiji with them unless Stanley Vae came up with $22,000.00 (I consider that Stanley was mistaken in his reference to Ms Devi’s mother demanding $44,000.00 from him); I point to the big family group she was confronted with on arriving at her parents’ house, and the fact that there was no evidence that any of that group took issue with the parents’ demands; also I accept N Mosese’s evidence of the mother restraining Ms Devi by the wrist and screaming abuse at Stanley Vae. The enormous parental pressure on Ms Devi would have been perfectly obvious to N Mosese, and his verbal exchanges with Ms Devi and Stanley Vae would have been coloured by this.

g(i)

The Crown called evidence from various personnel on duty at Henderson airport on 14 February 1998; there was independent evidence from them that N Mosese had escorted Ms Devi through the airport and into the transit lounge, and evidence going to Ms Devi’s unhappy demeanor. There has also evidence of N Mosese having stated to an official that the girl, Ms Devi, had a problem. There was further evidence of the lack of departure formalities carried out by Ms Devi.

(ii)

This evidence, the Crown says, corroborates the Crown case that N Mosese must have known that in all the circumstances, Ms Devi did not consent to departing from the Solomon Islands.

(iii)

I accept that Ms Devi was in fact chaperoned at the airport by N Mosese; I accept that she was clearly unhappy and upset; I also accept that N Mosese put his hand on her back and indicated to her that it was time to go into the terminal; I also accept that he overheard Ms Devi saying to Stanley Vae outside the terminal "do something" as words to that effect.

(iv)

These factors certainly go some way to assist the Crown’s assertions that N Mosese knew that Ms Devi did not consent to her departure, and taken in isolation might be said to be conclusive of that. However, in saying that, I do not accept that Ms Devi was led by the wrist by N Mosese to and through the terminal – had that been the case, I would have expected some corroboration from the airport officials who observed the pair and gave evidence. I also consider it was clear to all that she was upset about leaving her partner, and her demeanour and actions at the airport are equally consistent with that.

(v)

The matter has to be considered in its overall context, and in particular, the reasons N Mosese and the others were at the airport in the first place that day.

(vi)

I have already said that I accept the evidence given by N Mosese and corroborated by Inspector Karani that information had been received about a threat from Stanley Vae to have a gang waiting at the airport. I accept that it was in response to this information that N Mosese and his other police officers took Ms Devi to the airport that day. I also consider and so find that this was the reason why N Mosese took Ms Devi to the airport and chaperoned Ms Devi at the airport that day, namely to ensure that there was no violence or any other trouble from emanating Stanley Vae that day.

(vii)

The fact that N Mosese overheard Ms Devi saying "do something" to Stanley Vae, which evidence I accept, has to be seen in this context, and is capable of having been construed by N Mosese as a last minute plea for Stanley to do something to attempt to change the mind of the parents – it does not inescapably point to a conclusion that Ms Devi had not acceded, however reluctantly, to her parents’ demands.

(viii)

I reiterate that my finding is that N Mosese saw his role at the airport as ensuring there was no trouble caused by Stanley Vae, rather than as ensuring that Ms Devi could not avoid departure from the Solomon Islands.

107

For all these reasons, I consider that the Crown has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that N Mosese knew that Ms Devi had not consented to go to Fiji with her parents.

108

The other two police officers involved, namely S Kalita and W Manefakale, also in effect denied (in their cases in unsworn statements) that they knew that Ms Devi did not consent to her departure.

109

The evidence is that they had considerably less to do with the events of 13 and 14 February 1998 than N Mosese, who was their superior and who was for a large part the liaison point between the parents on the one hand and Ms Devi and Stanley Vae on the other.

110

For that reason, I do not think it necessary to analyse in this judgment the evidence relating to the extent of their involvement.

111

I am content to say that in their cases the evidence falls well short of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that either or both of them knew that Ms Devi had not consented to the demands of her parents that she return to Fiji.

112

I add that even had I found that N Mosese knew that Ms Devi did not consent to leaving the Solomon Islands, I would nevertheless have still been of the view that the evidence falls short of establishing that either S Kalita or W Manefakale had this knowledge. I accept their evidence that they were only following orders, and as such had far less direct involvement with, and knowledge of, matters as they unfolded.

113

The Crown case against R Gilbert needs to be considered somewhat separately from the others.

114

The Crown called evidence establishing that on the morning of 13 February 1998 R Gilbert, at the request of Ms Devi’s mother, arranged the renewal of Ms Devi’s then expired passport on an urgent basis.

115

I accept the Crown’s evidence that R Gilbert did arranged this renewal. R Gilbert admits in unsworn statements that he took the application for renewal to the Immigration Office, together with Ms Devi’s passport. I find that this was without the knowledge or consent of Ms Devi. I also accept her evidence that what purported to be her signature on the application for renewal of her passport was not in fact her signature, though the evidence falls short of establishing who forged her signature.

116

The evidence is less clear as to whether R Gilbert picked up the renewed passport, but it is not material in my view.

117

As to the evidence relating to the passport, I accept that it demonstrates that R Gilbert was prepared to assist the parents in renewing Ms Devi’s passport in effect behind her back.

118

But there is no evidence that at the time of assisting in this way, R Gilbert knew of any plan the parents may have had to remove Ms Devi from the country against her will.

119

There is evidence that R Gilbert was in the parents’ house that night when Ms Devi said that the topic of going to Fiji was first raised. But I am not satisfied that R Gilbert necessarily heard that conversation, or understood its ramifications. Even if he did, I am not satisfied that he later knew anything of the detail of the arrangements between the parents and Ms Devi about the trip to Fiji, much less that he knew that Ms Devi had not consented to go.

120

I am not satisfied from the evidence of Ms Devi that she was in fact guarded throughout the night of 13 February by R Gilbert. She gave evidence that the doors were locked but did not say by whom. She also stated that during the night R Gilbert fell asleep. The evidence was that others, also, remained, in the house.

121

The evidence as a whole falls short of establishing that R Gilbert in effect held her captive that night

122

The next day, whether or not R Gilbert was in the truck to the airport in which Ms Devi travelled (and the evidence differs in this respect), there is no evidence of R Gilbert getting out of the truck at the airport or being in a position to hear or observe to any degree the interaction between Ms Devi, her parents and others.

123

I find that the evidence falls short of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that R Gilbert knew Ms Devi did not consent to her departure from the country.

124

In view of my findings, I consider it unnecessary to speculate on whether any of the accused, and particular N Mosese, learnt of the true age of Ms Devi during their involvement on 13 and 14 February 1998. All accused denied this.

125

I accept the evidence of N Mosese that when originally confronted by her parents, they put the case to him and the Deputy Police Commissioner that their daughter was under 18 years of age at the time, and that N Mosese approached the matter on this basis.

126

I accept that this was the trigger for the police to commence their intervention, which was initiated by the despatch of the female police officers to the parents’ property and then to Stanley Vae’s property.

127

It follows from my findings that I consider that the parents were acting in a deceitful way by misrepresenting the age of their daughter (who was in fact 22 years old) to enlist police assistance, having the previous year been told by the Central Police Station that they couldn’t assist because the daughter was 22 years old.

128

Mr Lawrence, for the defence, characterises the parents’ actions in this respect as a ruse. I agree, and so find. I consider the parents were entirely capable of this type of behaviour. After all, there was evidence from Ms Devi that they had in the past slapped her and dragged her by the hair, and threatened to cut her if she continued her relationship, all of which I accept happened. There is also the evidence that her father said that he "buried" Ms Devi back at the police station in 1997.

129

I find the parents to have been deceitful and manipulative in relation to their daughter.

130

Whether their ruse extended to inventing a story that Stanley Vae had telephoned threatening trouble at the airport to once again gain police assistance on the day of departure, or whether they had in fact received that phone call, is irrelevant, and I make no finding in this respect.

131

In view of my findings about knowledge of lack of consent not having been proved, I need not make any specific findings on whether at any stage on 13 or 14 February 1998 N Mosese or any of the other accused may have learnt the true age of Ms Devi.

132

In view of my findings, on the evidence there are no grounds made out to find any of the accused guilty of any lesser offences contained in the Penal Code.

133

I enter verdicts of Not Guilty to the kidnapping charge for each and all of the accused, with the effect that all are acquitted of the charge.