IN my previous article on the ongoing debate with the Director of Public Prosecution, the general procedures that lead to prosecution were discussed.
Let me now focus on a police report prepared by a member of the Police Participating Force [PPF] on the case involving the hit-and-run death of 21 year-old Shane Snyder in Honiara three years ago.
The report was written by Kylie Pratt, an analyst, attached to the PPF Intelligence. It was dated 7th August 2008.
Solomon Star has obtained a copy of the report, which has raised more questions than answers about initial police handling of the fatality and why the DPP did not seem to notice, given his Office was always in the loop in the matter.
The report revealed “conflicting witness statements, unanswered questions, allegations of witness collaboration, allegations of unethical police involvement and a number of persons still to be interviewed.”
It’s a body of mounting evidence that cannot simply be ignored by competent law enforcement agencies. In this case, the DPP didn’t even blink. Why?
Here’s what Ms Pratt said in a cover letter – a two-page executive summary marked, CPPF, via PM C& I – on the matter.
“An examination of the PSII [Professional Standards & Internal Investigations] records in relation to this incident reveal[s] conflicting witness statements, questions which remain unanswered, allegations of witness collaboration, allegations of unethical SIPF [Solomon Islands Police Force] involvement and a number of persons still to be interviewed.
“These issues are being addressed by an ongoing investigation being conducted by PSII with advice from the Department of Public Prosecution [DPP],” the report said.
It cleared PPF personnel of “negative interference” in the case.
Having examined the documents made available to PPF Intelligence, “it is possible to state there is no information to suggest any members of the PPF negatively interfered in the investigation of the incident,” the report said.
According to the report, Ms Edwards whom police say is the prime suspect in the case was either charged with or was facing several charges at the time. The report denied these charges were ever dropped.
For reasons only known to the initial police investigating team – reasons that should have prompted the DPP to order a fresh investigation, only one charge was entered against Ms Edwards when she appeared in court on Tuesday morning, 26th September 2006.
Why? What are these other charges and whatever happened to them? Were these charges dropped as part of the conspiracy to pervert the natural cause of justice?
“Additionally, there is no evidence or information to suggest that charges against Edwards were ever dropped.
“All examined documentation shows Edwards was only charged with the charge of Permitting an Unlicensed Driver”.
Why? What happened to the other charges referred to in the police PSII report?
Actions by the DPP appeared to have been choreographed to ensure all the other “charges against Edwards” died a natural death. Why?
First, the DPP knew from the beginning that the initial police investigation which saw Lynn Baura behind bars was rushed.
This was evident from the police PSII report.
For example, vital evidence that the accident had caused a death was withheld from Magistrate, Esther Lelapitu, who heard the case that Tuesday morning. Why?
And why didn’t this piece of evidence alone – that of omitting or withholding of vital police evidence – alarm the DPP to take appropriate action?
It’s a bit like a miner ignoring a piece of gold nugget sticking out of the ground.
Magistrate Esther Lelapitu was formally alerted two weeks after she presided over the case by Kukum Traffic.
In the letter addressed to the Principal Magistrate, Police Constable, Robinson Harvey, said the officer who prosecuted the case had done so “without having been briefed properly”.
He named the prosecuting officer as Police Constable Rodney Wheatney, a close friend of another police officer, Police Constable Steven Mae, the unauthorised police officer who attended the accident scene even though he was off duty.
Those who know PC Wheatney and PC Mae said both men are friends of former police officer, George Keso, the man who initially told police he was the driver of the offending vehicle but later changed his story.
All three met during the ethnic tension.
In the letter dated 12th October 2006, PC Harvey expressed “surprise” that the owner of the vehicle, Carol Edwards was brought to court “without principal offender”, referring to Lynn Baura, who had allegedly admitted to being the driver of the vehicle.
Ms Baura fronted the court in February 2009 – almost two and a half years later.
According to the PSII report, Ms Baura was charged with and convicted of Dangerous Driving Causing Death.
At the time the PSII report was being prepared, Ms Baura was also charged with Unfit to Drive, Influence of Alcohol, Drive without a Licence and Failure to Stop.
She was given a 12-month jail sentence but was released from jail after serving half the term.
Following a torrent of complaints by Snyder’s father over initial police handling of the case, the PSII carried out its own investigation.
That investigation, among other things, has established through statements from eyewitness accounts that Ms Baura was not the driver of the vehicle as she was not in the vehicle when it made its first stop at Mendana Kitano hotel after the accident on the morning of Saturday 23rd September 2006.
Police believe that Carol Edwards, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, was the driver.
It was based on the new police findings that Ms Edwards was arrested and charged with manslaughter when she arrived in Honiara from Brisbane in October last year.
Police have confirmed that manslaughter was intended as a holding charge.
The decision was taken primarily for two reasons – to prevent potential interference with other witnesses and to give more time to police to re-interview other witnesses, some of whom might have committed perjury, that is lying under oath in court.
Police also confirmed that the decision to charge Ms Edwards with manslaughter stemmed from evidence police have collected.
Eyewitnesses at the scene of the accident told police they saw Shane Snyder’s body landed on the roof of the vehicle on impact.
They said the vehicle drove somewhat slowly to a darker area of the road, about 70 metres from the scene of the accident before a hand reached out from the driver’s side, pulled down the body and threw it onto the road.
The vehicle then picked up speed and drove way.
If this could be proven in court, it is premeditated and therefore it is murder. Charges such as disposing of a corpse with intent to conceal a crime could follow. As it turned out, it was not to be.
It is believed police were ready to charge up to seven people, including two police officers on a range of charges including perjury.
It was then that the DPP stepped in.
First, the prosecution released Ms Edwards without any bail conditions when she appeared in court on the manslaughter charge last October/November – a first according to those familiar with court matters. Why?
Is it preferential treatment, incompetence or corruption?
Ms Edwards’ passport was ordered returned and she was allowed to travel back to Australia.
Imagine a case like this in Australia or New Zealand where a prime suspect in a potential murder case was released without bail? It’s unthinkable.
Police had an inkling that something was amiss.
When Ms Edwards again appeared in court for mention on 8th December last year, the case was reportedly disposed of in less than 10 minutes.
The DPP had directed the Prosecution to record Nolles Presqui on the case, technically washing out the case. Why?
Isn’t the DPP supposed to be upholding the law, hence protecting the Constitution?
Or has there been a new Constitution that allows the DPP to impede authorised and competent police officers undertaking serious crime investigation?
More on the police PSII report later.
Watch this space!
By ALFRED SASAKO
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
