REGINA

-V- 

Brian Alagere (aka Scophield Baro)
	
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS 
(PALMER CJ.) 
 
Criminal Case Number 203 of 2013

Hearing:	2nd February 2015
Ruling:	3rd February 2015

M. Manata (Ms) and R. Olutimayin (Ms.) for the Crown 
Mr. G. Gray and Mr. S. Valenitabua for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

Yesterday, 2nd February 2015, over the lunch break, one of the defence counsels in this case was threatened by one of the relatives of the deceased girl in the trial before this court.  Earlier on in the trial the Court was told that one of the prosecution witnesses was threatened by the relatives of the defendant in this case.

I expressed my strong disappointments and disapprovals yesterday over such course of behaviour.  What I did not say, which I now express and make clear is that this type of behaviour is also covered by law; the law of contempt.  A person can be charged and brought to Court for contempt if he or she is seen to be interfering with the due administration of justice.  In the case of Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers [1974] A.C. 273, Lord Diplock outlined the ways in which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced.

“The due administration of justice requires first of that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionality established courts or criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as to their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitration of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of that court to decide it according to law.  Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine the public confidence that they will be observed is a contempt of court.”

Any form of conduct which involves an interference with the due administration of justice can amount to a contempt.  Apart from the more obvious interference with witnesses and judicial officers, any interference with the work of persons concerned in litigation, that is, lawyers is a contempt of court.  This is made clear by the learned Author in Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice:

“Those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and shielded on their way to the discharge of such duties, while discharging them and on their return therefrom, in order that such persons may safely have resort to courts of justice.”

As made very clear by Counsel, Mr. Gray in his comments yesterday in court, Counsels in any case do not have any vested interest in a case, in the same way judicial officers also do not have vested interests in the outcome of a case or trial other than to fulfil their duties as lawyers and judicial officers “… to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. If they do have an interest, the normal course of action to take would be to recuse oneself from taking carriage of such a case and I know lawyers and judicial officers have done that in appropriate cases.  

I appreciate that because the adversarial system or process of justice in this country that we have adopted is not familiar to many of our people, some misunderstandings are bound to occur.  We will do our best to continue to educate our people about the criminal justice process in the country and how it works.  In short let me say this, that the adversarial system of court procedure consists of a conflict between the prosecution and the defence, unless a guilty plea is entered from the outset.  The parties decide what evidence to collect, present, agree or dispute.  The court’s role is primarily to decide the case.  I think it is important to bear in mind that in such a process there will be an element of partiality by Counsels in favour of their case, whichever side they are on but this is a healthy partiality for it contributes to the ultimate goal of impartial justice and both the Bar and the Bench contribute to this end.

This brings me to rule specifically on the issues raised yesterday. I note members of the public who have attended court day in and day out have been very respectful and well behaved. But for the incident which happened over the lunch break, and I would want to think that that is more an aberration and irregularity than the norm and not reflective of the views of the majority of the members of the public, including the media, who have come in to listen and observe court proceedings first hand and to see for themselves the due administration of justice at work. I have often said in my speeches that “The Rule of Law is best seen, heard and felt by the people in the judicial determination of disputes, both between citizens and between citizens and the State”.  I think that has been displayed professionally by everyone in the proceedings in the past week and days.  

I have also pointed out that court rooms and premises should be secure enough for everyone to conduct the business of justice without feeling intimidated or frightened and in spite of what happened yesterday we will endeavour to improve on these so that such incidents are minimised or avoided.  Having said that, it is my considered view that the only person that needs to be excluded is the person involved in yesterday’s disturbance from the court room and I direct that he be excluded from the court hearings herewith.

As for the application to exclude the media, it is again my considered view that the fourth estate be not muzzled but with this qualification, that the media must demonstrate responsibility and integrity in their reporting of court cases for the benefit and edification of the public and to avoid sensationalising evidence or matters expressed in court that could cause disharmony or disturbance in the community.

The Court.