IN December last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ronald Bei Talasasa jnr, issued a statement revealing he consults no one, nor does he take advice from anyone on matters relating to court cases he had struck off.
Mr Talasasa was responding to a series of articles I have written on a case involving Carol Edwards, a Solomon Islands woman resident in Australia.
Police said Ms Edwards is the main suspect in a fatal hit-and-run accident in Honiara on 23 September 2006.
They believe Ms Edwards was the driver of the vehicle, which hit Shane Snyder of Fishing Village around 3am that Saturday morning.
Snyder died in hospital shortly thereafter from injuries he had received from the accident.
In a series of articles I have written on the matter, it was clear from documents and interviews that police advice to proceed with the case was ignored.
In other words, there was sufficient evidence, but the DPP chose to ignore the evidence, claiming in one instance that evidence provided by the husband of another woman accused of driving the vehicle, was merely “hearsay”.
Here’s part of the media statement the DPP made last December while he was on leave.
“The DPP is not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in the performance of his official duties.
To say that the DPP defies advice in the performance of his official function insults the sanctity of the very institution that enjoys constitutional veil. Whose advice could the DPP defy?
“The DPP is the authority. The DPP of Solomon Islands is not influenced by rumours, hearsay, gossips or innuendos. He decides on matters as on evidence.”
Unfortunately it seems evident that Mr Talasasa is more than willing, as seen in this case and the Carol Edwards, case, to frustrate or provide specific directions so that further investigation or evidence gathering on which these cases would rely when presented before the Courts.
The DPP appears to be suffering memory lapses.
For in another statement he had made to the media last weekend after his “delayed” return from leave, the DPP had made a 360 degree turnaround.
Here’s what he said in relation to a case involving a John Gideon Hunter, a murder suspect whose case, like Carol Edwards’ was struck off without giving a reason.
In the case of Hunter, police were still in the middle of their investigations when Mr Talasasa released him from custody.
As well, the suspect was still serving a 14-day remand granted by the Magistrates Court two weeks earlier to give police enough time to continue with their investigation.
This is what he’s reported to have said.
“John Gideon Hunter was charged with murder in relation to the killing of John Iki Isu on the morning of 1 November 2008 at Ranadi, east Honiara. Hunter was released because there’s no evidence against [him].”
The DPP claimed investigators advised him “there was no evidence linking the suspect with the murder”.
He went on: “May I clarify that the DPP allocates work to his prosecutors,” Mr Talasasa said.
“Each prosecutor then advises or offers opinions to the DPP on any issue that arises in any particular matter.
“The DPP considers the advice/opinion, does his own reading of the statements of witnesses, etc, conducts his own research where necessary (and depending on the complexity of the matter).
“The DPP then exercises his discretion,” he said.
Mr Talasasa buried the bombshell to the end.
Claiming that the procedure and protocol he had followed were the same all over the world, he had this to say.
“It must be emphasised that the DPP does not act alone in the process but in accordance with set protocols and his office practice,” he said.
This is a huge departure from what he said barely weeks earlier.
He continued, “On 24 November 2008, I received a memo from the Inspector of Police and PCIO/Honiara City that there is no evidence linking the accused to the incident/crime and for the charge to be withdrawn.
“At the meeting the two officers presented to the DPP the PCIO’s memo stating the lack of evidence to connect the accused to the offence and if the accused be unconditionally released from custody.
“The DPP and the allocated Prosecutor Mathew Coates had a discussion with police at that meeting then the DPP considered the matter and endorsed the recommendation accordingly.
It seems that after all, the DPP has is human. He has come down from “the clouds of doubt”. But instead of clearing the doubts, he has created more.
In explaining himself, the DPP has left some gaping holes, in John Hunter’s case. His explanation had raised more questions than it answers.
For example, the question must be asked, “Was John Iki Isu’s death of natural causes?
If the answer is yes, then the DPP and Police are correct in allowing John Gideon Hunter to walk free.
However, if Isu died from suspicious circumstances, as was the belief of many police officers, then it is necessary for the police to start and be allowed to carry out a full and thorough investigation including an autopsy, to establish the cause of death.
This was never done. Why, Mr DPP?
Because in normal circumstances, once the cause of death is established, it is up to the police to investigate and identify the individual and or the people responsible for Isu’s death and or to lay charges where appropriate.
It is premature for the DPP to enter a Nolle Prosequi and to dismiss the case some 13 days after the incident on solely verbal advice by police.
The DPP should be directing the police to carry out a full and thorough investigation. Where necessary an experienced and a competent officer that have no conflict of interest in this matter be assigned to carry out investigation and lay the necessary charges.
Mr Talasasa who had just returned from an extended annual leave said his decision on this matter was based on police advice he had received.
May I ask, which police officers? And was the evidence written or verbal?
I can tell you that I have cited an odd affidavit by a police officer on the case. It made no sense at all, that affidavit. It was not even signed by a Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace. Is this the kind of thing the DPP relies on?
He said the practice was common. How common, is it, Mr DPP?
For this so-called common practice does not seem to hold true in Carol Edwards’ case. According to police, Lynn Baura, who was the sacrificial lamb in the Carol Edwards’ case, was never in the vehicle.
There are at least three separate eye witness accounts to this fact.
This piece of evidence alone, coupled with Ms Baura’s husband’s confession that his wife was not the driver, are very strong evidence.
On the balance of probability, this is strong stuff for police to go on.
But police were bitterly disappointed when the DPP cut short their effort to thoroughly investigate the case. Why did you do it, Mr DPP?
The people of Solomon Islands demand of the DPP to direct and exchange information with police investigators to ensure a conviction, based on the evidence provided, rather than the systematic issue of Nolle.
Can Mr Talasasa explain his protocol?
It would be very interesting for the DPP to provide us with the number of cases he had Nolle Prosequi entered into under his leadership, as compared with his immediate predecessor.
The excuse given by the DPP that he “would not recommend to Police to charge a person, keep him in custody and investigate later” is not acceptable.
This is because it depends on the severity of the case. In the John Hunter’s case, it seems to be murder.
Keeping him in police custody is justified the potential for the suspect doing the following is real and has happened in the past.
The suspect could, for example, abscond or disappear. If this is the view of the police, then the person should be held in remand, unless the court sets high bail conditions.
There is also the potential for the person interfering with witnesses or member of their family and the potential for conspiracy to collude evidence is real.
Finally, a word or two on the excessive and unjustified use of nolle prosequi.
The Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, 1998, defined the term, “Nolle Prosequi” in this way.
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.
Nolle, for short, is a Latin legal phrase meaning “not to proceed”. It is usually granted based on the correct reason.
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. Often, the person issuing the order to discontinue the case gives ample reason[s] for his action.
A Nolle Prosequi is in the law we inherited from Britain for a reason. It is granted not merely for the sake of granting it. It is granted usually for lack of evidence.
Those vested with the power to use it, must do so for the correct reason. Failure to do so could be interpreted as using a Nolle Prosequi to delay, divert attention away from or to obscure or hide the fact.
Such use constitutes abuse of process and could be seen as using the law for the miscarriage of justice or to pervert the natural course of justice.
In the two known cases that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ronald Bei Talasasa jnr had applied “Nolle Prosequi”, he gave no reason at all.
In the case of Carol Edwards - the woman police said is the prime suspect in a fatal hit-and-run accident in Honiara in September 2006 – the DPP gave no reason at all when the Prosecutor was directed on December 6 last year to terminate the case.
It was a move seen by police as the biggest obstacle to their work.
It is true that a Nolle does not put an end to further police investigation. The catch here is that any further investigation has to be ordered by the DPP himself.
Police Commissioner, Peter Marshall, pointed this out in a recent article that it is all up to the DPP to give direction on where the case goes from here.
To date, Mr Talasasa jnr has failed to provide any direction to police on the case.
His promised return “in the clouds of doubt” appeared to have hit a snag when he failed to show up at work after two weeks.
Given that he only showed for work last Friday, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt that he acts in the best interest of the Constitution and Solomon Islands.
By ALFRED SASAKO
Brisbane
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
