I HAVE been following the Carol Edwards’ matter as reported in the various local newspapers over the past years, in particular over the past two months and the heated exchanges of comments and interviews on the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Commission (SIBC) between investigative journalist Alfred Sasako and the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Ronald Bei Talasasa.
As someone who had dealt with the matter at the outset, I would like to give you all a brief back ground to the case.
When the incident happened, I was on leave. I returned to work approximately 14 days after the incident.
When I reported in, my commanding officer, Sgt Oge called me over and handed me the case file relating to the fatal accident.
Sgt Oge said words to the effect, “you save luk luk lo case ya, hem no luk straight lo me, this falla Carol Edwards, nao me suspectem (to be the prime suspect) lo this falla accident, hem because narawan lo hia like mekem case ya go quick time tumas”.
A literal translation in English from Solomon Islands pijin would say something like :
As Sgt Oge handed me the case file, he said words to the effect, “can you have a look at this. There are far too many inconsistencies in this case. I suspect this Carol Edwards is the driver and is the prime suspect.
“This seems to be the reason why this other police officer wants to dispose of the case very quickly without going through the normal procedures, including the authority from his superiors to proceed with the prosecution, which they have done”.
After going through the file, I noted that there indeed were inconsistencies, and statements missing which were duly noted, i.e. some statements, although catalogued in the “Dairy of Action” as being taken, the actual statements of various witnesses appeared purposefully removed from the file.
I noted also that there were some conflicting statements by the witnesses themselves on their recollection of the events of what had happened.
I was also surprised that the matter was taken to Court so promptly for disposal, contrary to the rules, usual procedure and practice.
The rule states that an incident cannot be taken to Court within the 7 days period after the incident.
In the matter of Carol Edwards, it was before the Court only 1 working day after the accident.
The accident happened in the early hours of Saturday 23 September 2006, and the case was brought before and disposed of by the Court on Tuesday 26 September 2006.
What I noted also was that the “principal” offender (Lyn Baura) was not present in Court that day, only Carol Edwards, the said owner of the vehicle.
In my experience in the 20 plus years in the traffic division of Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIP), this is the first time I have encountered an event such as this i.e. going to Court without the principal offender.
I also note that as a result of Carol Edwards’ actions of permitting an unlicensed person to drive her vehicle, a person was killed because of her actions in knowingly allowing an unlicensed person to drive the vehicle.
This vital piece of evidence was withheld by the prosecution when the matter was presented in Court only 3 days after the incident (two weekend days and one working day).
After the matter was heard in Court, Carol Edwards and another witness who I believe to be the only other person known to be with her at the time of the accident flew out of the country the same day, Tuesday 26 September 2006, bound for freedom and out of the reaches of the Solomon Islands Law enforcement jurisdiction.
It seems to me, this action alone, by being away from Solomon Islands has given the necessary time for the other witnesses and offenders to collude and collaborate in a move designed to strengthen their version of the event should the police resume further questioning on the incident.
During the time I was reviewing the case file, I was approached by my colleague officers who made direct comments to my face with words to the effect, “do you know that you are dealing with millionaires?”, “do you know who you’re dealing with?”
This raises the questions:
• Has money changed hands or been promised?
• If so, how much changed hands and how much was promised?
• Who has been paid? and
• Who made the payments? and/or
• If so, who financed this perversion of the natural course of justice?
I found it necessary to promptly write to the presiding Magistrate, and wrote a letter on the 12 October 2006. Copies of my letter were provided to with cc to the following :
• Commissioner of Police
• Director of PSII
• PPC / Honiara City
• Director of Prosecution
• Operation Specialist
• Director of CID
My letter is self explanatory. I asked if the Magistrate was aware that a person was killed in the accident. The Magistrate responded in the negative on the 18 October 2006. Copies were cc to the following:
• Hon Chief Justice
• Commissioner of Police
• Director of PSII
• PPC / Honiara City
• Director of Prosecution
• Operation Specialist
• Director of CID
Copies of these two correspondences were sent to the various departments.
It is clear from the Magistrate’s response that she had not [not] known about it, and would have taken a different approach to the matter had she been given the facts and true information about the fatality.
As a result of directly writing to the Magistrate, I was called in by the then Commissioner of Police, Shane Castles, who promptly told me that my actions were wrong. He spoke to me in very harsh voice and tones.
At this point readers, I wish to make these notes of inconsistencies and the double standards that were taken to highlight a similar incident. I also wish to ask and raise these questions.
I draw a parallel to a similar incident that happened approximately a few months earlier than the accident involving Carol Edwards & Lyn Baura.
I was the investigating officer. For the time being, I will refer to this matter as “FS”. A pedestrian was killed as a result of this accident.
In the course of my investigation, it came to my notice that the driver was going overseas.
Five (5) days after the accident, part of compiling my case for prosecution, was to amend the bail conditions.
I requested and was granted by the Courts and obtained a Ruling, i.e. a Restraining Order to confiscate and hold onto the person’s passport thus preventing the person from leaving the country, until police have completed their investigation and the case was dealt with fully by the Court.
In the matter of the “FS” case, it seemed no one cared.
No questions or points were even raised even if I might have been doing the wrong or the right thing.
In the “FS” matter I was never placed in the same situation as I faced in the Carol Edwards case, that is, no undue pressure was placed on me by my colleagues or superiors.
Even Commissioner Castles did not show the same level of interest in this case as he did in the Carol Edwards’ case. Why?
Was this because there was no “millionaires” or people with self interest involved?
Is it not ironic to note that the sitting Magistrate who presided over the Carol Edwards’ matter is the same Magistrate that granted the Restraining Order which prevented “FS” from leaving the country until such time I could thoroughly investigate the matter and the Court could deal with it in a thorough and proper manner?
In Carol Edwards’ case, this vital piece of evidence was withheld by the prosecution, (i.e. that a person was killed in the incident).
Why? Had this vital piece of information been placed before the judge, I have no doubt whatsoever that the presiding Magistrate would have taken the same line of ruling (i.e. same precedent has been established previously) and that Carol Edwards and her witness would have had their passports confiscated and withheld thus preventing Carol Edwards (and her co witness) from leaving the country until the matter was properly investigated by myself or another reliable investigating officer.
I ask these questions:
1. Is not Justice for all?
2. Are the rich entitled to or privileged or favoured by the police and the legal system?
3. Were the comments made to me by my colleagues designed to influence my investigation or place me under undue pressure to not conduct a thorough investigation?
4. And or were these comments made to threaten me?
On the arrival of RAMSI in June 2003, and the cleanup of the RSIP that followed, the very element that RAMSI stood for and vowed to eliminate corruption within the RSIP as NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
Sadly, this has not prevailed. “Lip service” is not what Solomon Islands needs, it is action, and hard decision needs to be addressed and hard action needs to be implemented and direction provided by the same people we vote into parliament.
At this point, I note that Australia is the single biggest contributor (financially and in personnel’s) to the presence of RAMSI.
From memory, I read a report in the Solomon Star newspaper in 2003, that the RAMSI program was Australian Dollars of AUD$20 million each year for the next 10 years.
I ask the tax payers in the countries participating in the Solomon Islands under the RAMSI program, has the money spent on restoring Law and Order been wasted by not weeding out corruption and incompetence in the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force ?
Six years into the RAMSI program, to restore confidence in the police and judicial system has not proven this to have happened.
I see the money spent has had little effect or impact in the restoration of the judicial system and creating and restoring discipline to the Royal Solomon Islands Police force.
We are more than 60 % into the “Helpem Fren” program.
What will happen after the 10 years? Will the participating countries in RAMSI continue to throw in more money, i.e. more waste of resources of good money and taxes paid from donor countries?
In this instance, looking through Carol Edwards’ file, I was pressured (directly and indirectly) by other senior ranking officers, and many words of contempt were uttered that I was doing the wrong thing.
The more I dug through the file, the more resistance I had from my superior as well as other colleagues (in and outside the Kukum Traffic branch) and no one was there to support my suspicions and findings.
It is only until now when journalist Alfred Sasako began digging into the case that we find this case goes deep into the heart of the RSIP (which I have known or suspected) and its cronies. i.e. I obtained a Warrant from the Court, to have the “evidence vehicle” towed from the panel beater’s premises back to Kukum compound to be used as evidence.
My insistences lead it to being returned and kept under police care in Kukum Police Station compound.
A few days had passed and I was told that Orders came from above to have the vehicle released back to the owner.
This to me was strange as the owner was still overseas at that time and would not have needed the use of the vehicle. When I argued my point, I was told directly that I was “OUT RANKED”.
It was put to me in a clear manner, that should I object further, charges of insubordination would be laid.
So far, what I have read of the revelation by journalist Sasako is accurate, i.e. Carol Edwards was driven to the airport in a police Hi Lux (G 2887) to catch a plane straight after the Court case was disposed of.
The route taken to the airport was also interesting to note, they took the back road, via Kola’a Ridge, and down through the suburban Vura road. I assume this was to avoid passing in front of Kukum Police Station, which is located along the main Prince Philip Highway to the airport.
For a period of time, it became quite a joke and a laughing matter within the Kukum traffic police.
They remarked: “hao, this falla time, umi taxi service moa ya”. “Kukum Traffic Police this time runem taxi service”. “you na ya driver”. “Askem taxi driver for takem you go”.
English Transalation would be : “Have we turned Kukum Police Traffic into a taxi service?”. “And, are we now running a taxi service?”. If you wanted to go somewhere, they would say “ask the driver”, at the same time pointing to a general location where the officer would normally be standing or stationed.
I believe Mr DPP it’s time for an overhaul of the entire prosecution system. If you are not capable of making hard decisions and implementing changes, then it is time one must step aside to allow another to provide leadership.
Relatives of the victims are still awaiting a result and be afforded justice in this matter.
To disregard their quest for justice and truth as you have done by declaring the case “NOLLE PROSEQUI”, is a slap in the face of the investigating officer who has taken over the case.
At the same time, your action is insensitive and borders on contempt towards the victim and the victim’s family.
For the readers, the phrase “NOLLE PROSEQUI”, when GOOGLED is defined as:
Nolle prosequi ( in Latin, commonly approximated in English) is a Latin legal phrase meaning "not to pursue." It is the term used in many common law criminal jurisdictions to describe a prosecutor's application to discontinue criminal charges before trial, or up until, but before verdict.
Other explained definitions :
o nolle pros: drop prosecution of by entering a nolle prosequi in the court records; "They nolle prossed the charge"
o an entry in the court record to the effect that the plaintiff or prosecutor will not proceed
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
o a declaration that a civil or criminal prosecution will not proceed
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nolle_prosequi
o A formal entry by the prosecuting officer in a criminal action, by which he declares that he "will no further prosecute" the case.
www.yorkcounty.gov/districtcourt/glossary.htm
o Voluntary dismissal of criminal charges by the state.
www.ides.state.il.us/ExOffenders/terminology.shtml
o Motion by prosecutor to dismiss a criminal complaint after it is filed; contains reasons for dismissal. Often shortened to "nolle."
www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm
However, the term “Nolle Prosequi”, as defined in the Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, 1998.
Unwilling to proceed. 1. An entry made to a court record when the prosecutor or plaintiff is unwilling to continue the suit against the defendant. 2. In criminal proceedings, a decision by the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecution not to continue with a prosecution on indictment after a bill has been found:
A Nolle Prosequi must be applied or used for the correct reason, failure to use a Nolle Prosequi for the correct reason or to use a Nolle Prosequi to delay, divert attention away from or to obscure or hide the fact, constitutes using the law for the miscarriage of justice or to pervert the natural course of justice.
Mr DPP, did you apply Section 91 [4][c] of the Constitution and Section 68[1] of the Criminal Procedure Code I as a method designed to hide the facts, capitalizing on the public's ignorance of the Law and what goes on behind the scene?
Or are you using Section 91 [4][c] of the Constitution and Section 68[1] of the Criminal Procedure Code I to bury more facts and thereby a premeditated act on your part designed to cover your own tracks?
If the Attorney General and/or the DPP have not demanded/directed the Police Commissioner or the investigating police officers to conduct an extensive and thorough investigation into the accident that killed Mr Synder then the application for a Nolle Prosequi for any other reason is a dereliction of/in the duty required by both the Attorney General and the DPP to justice and the people of Solomon Islands.
The unilateral decision of “NOLLE PROSEQUI”, taken by the head of the DPP without consultation (and or Attorney General) with other investigating police officers and relevant person within the DPP office lacks the integrity and is a dereliction of duty required by a person holding one of the highest offices in the Solomon Islands.
If the decision to declare “NOLLE PROSEQUI” is necessary to allow for a full and thorough investigation, then why is it that the investigating police officers have not yet been provided directions to investigate and cover all areas in this matter?
This should include requiring the police to have the principle person of interest returned to the Solomon Islands for further investigation into this matter.
This first article is intended to let the greater public know the inconsistencies of approaches that lie in and are endemic in the prosecution office.
This ultimately influences the outcome of any given case prepared by the investigating police officers and given to prosecution to take to the Courts.
I fear that if this practice continues, it will totally undermine public confidence and trust in the DPP as an institution set up to protect national interests and serve the people of Solomon Islands.
As many would have known, police gather and prepare prosecution material known as evidence.
Prosecutors from the DPP’s Office use the said evidence during the trial in pursuing a prosecution and conviction in Court.
To prove a point, I may highlight past cases that are similar, but have resulted in different outcomes because of the way police have carried out the investigation and how the prosecution have presented the evidence in Court.
I will write many more follow up articles to expose the attempt of “almost perfect crime” to pervert the natural course of justice in Solomon Islands.
By HARVEY ROBINSON
Honiara
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
