WHEN my article first appeared in the Solomon Star on the 9 February 2010, I was hoping the information I had provided would shed more light on the matter of Carol Edwards, given the various newspaper articles highlighting the DPP’s and the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force’s (RSIP) handling of the case.
I note that since my article was published, there have been numerous points that have been raised for and against Mr Sasako, who has written extensively on the issue in a debate with the DPP, coupled with other points of view and the questions of evidence etc.
However, NOT one person has taken to pen and paper to criticise me or question my recollection of events and other materials that I have provided.
Why, for what I have put on paper is and will always be the true accounts on what had transpired.
For I stand before my God who will protect me and will make the final judgement, if what I said has all been lies.
Despite the body of evidence I had provided in the article, I have been reliably informed that the RSIP and the DPP have not taken any action to rectify the wrong doing of some former colleagues.
I am also sad to read that Mr Sasako in his recent article that appeared in the Solomon Star on 10 March 2010 has decided to label his article “A Final Submission” in the matter of Carol Edwards.
He (Mr Sasako) should continue writing based on the evidence he has gathered on this case because he is doing the right thing by the people of Solomon Islands.
I also wish to thank the following (some more than once) for their contributions, and forgive me if I have left anyone out:
Author (Writer) date (in media)
Stalin Fiualakwa – White River 5 January 2010
Henry Daukalia – East Kola Ridge 5 January 2010
Uriel Matangani – White River 5 January 2010
Andrew Maomaiasi - Honiara 9 January 2010
John Loare – Honiara 12 January 2010
Lenin Afuia – Honiara 13 January 2010
C E F Siamanu – Honiara 22 January 2010
Mbovia Guakisa – Marovo Lagoon 8 February 2010
R. Patrick Lavery – Honiara 9 February 2010
Mr Ala – Honiara 16 February 2010
Vinnie Teo - Honiara 17 February 2010
Crinzy Ta’aru – Arosi One, Makira 18 February 2010
Simon Martin – Tasahe 19 February 2010
Bonnie R Keke – Honiara 20 February 2010
Ken Qwaina – Central Honiara 25 February 2010
Before I launch myself into this matter and what I hope will be many more articles to come on this, I wish to provide a brief background of myself.
First, I wish to place it for the record that I no longer work for the RSIP.
I joined the RSIP on 8 January 1990 after I had completed the requisite training. Since graduation, I was posted to Kukum Traffic Division where I spent the next 17 years or so. I remained there till about November 2006.
It was then that I requested a transfer to another area. My request was largely prompted by the way the Carol Edwards’ matter was handled. This was pointed out in my earlier article.
Let me quote the relevant issues I raised in that initial article:
[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?
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].
That month (November 2006), I was finally transferred to Police Prosecution Branch, where I remained until September 2009, when I decided to resign from RSIP.
Some readers may ask, Why resign?
I will not answer the question for now; however, this could be answered in a later article.
On the arrival of RAMSI in June 2003 to 2006 (when I left), two (2) RAMSI personnel, one from Australia and the other from New Zealand, were posted to the Traffic Branch.
They made significant contributions to the Traffic Branch. I believe they were of reputable standing and qualifications in handling investigation into fatal accidents causing death and other accident related cases.
During my time in Traffic Division, these two people realised my ability and willingness to learn and to work hard and left the entire work load on to me to sort out.
Apart from equipping me with the expertise and knowledge, these two RAMSI officers also provided me with various tools such as traffic templates, scale rulers, tape measures, torches, sketching pencils, graphic papers, reflecting vest – things we did not have at the Traffic Branch.
Unfortunately, their attachment to the Traffic Branch was only temporary, limited to their “rotation” schedule program.
Other RAMSI officers that were posted to the Kukum Traffic Branch during my time, I would say did not show the same dedication, commitment or willingness to educate or should I use their popular catch phrase “capacity building” in the RSIP.
They were more of a “taxi” driver or “chauffeur”.
My disappointment is that although these two officers were prepared to educate us in the Traffic Branch, it seemed that some of my colleague officers were not interested in being taught, which is a real shame.
While I was under their “supervision”, I was put on observation on a practical test involving a case, where a vehicle (truck belonging to Don Bosco) travelling westward hit a bus (at the Kukum bus stop) which suddenly pulled out from the bus stop.
The chain reaction was that the Truck hit the back of the Bus, which then pushed the bus forward.
The bus ended up colliding with an innocent female pedestrian bystander, who was standing about 5 – 8 metres away. She was killed as a result of the impact of the accident.
My observations and investigation took into calculation the length of the skid marks on the road and the directions and tangent the vehicles took.
Given the extensive, on-the-job training I had undertaken in that short period, I can categorically say that up until the time of my transfer, I am the most qualified person in the Traffic Branch.
Residing at the back of Kukum Traffic station, it became a habit of the senior ranking officers to call me up constantly even when I was off-duty.
I was always relied upon on matters relating to traffic accidents.
I recall a funny incident in one of the instances. One morning an officer came running to my house.
How it was put to me, was that it was an urgent matter, and my presence was urgently required at the station.
At the station, I found out that a RAMSI officer had asked other senior officers in Kukum Traffic Branch a series of questions, one of which was “what is the maximum speed limit for light goods vehicle travelling along Honiara road.”
Not one person that was present in the entire Kukum Police Station was able to answer this simple question.
I stepped in and responded to the RAMSI officer’s questions. I then proceeded to show the other officers in Kukum Traffic Branch where to look for it in the Traffic Act handbook that was provided to all officers at Traffic Branch.
All Traffic Manuals (books) were given to each officer and copies are kept on the shelf.
It seems to me that the other police colleagues are more interested in getting “promotion” so that they can exercise their authority over the lower ranking officers like me.
In my observation, these promoted officers have demonstrated little or no professional ability in carrying out actual work.
Not only was I the most qualified and practical person, but I can say that I have refused 100 % all attempts of bribery to pervert a case.
There is an unwritten law, a culture if you like, in and amongst members of the RSIP. It is this. If you see something wrong involving your colleague, turn a “blind eye”, i.e. never report on your fellow officers.
I have witnessed fellow officers invent creative ways of extracting money from drivers and vehicle owners.
Although not Gazetted into Law, one such officer had and would issue “on the spot fines”.
No GTR (Government Treasury Receipt) was issued after the vehicle driver or owner had paid the “fine”.
Oh yes, this was a regular occurrence, in particular on a Friday or Saturday.
During my time, I believe these incidents were reported to the Police Professional Standards Internal Investigation (PSII) for further investigation.
Where it went from there, I don’t know. Maybe there is something sinister about the different tangents it has developed into (perhaps into thin air?).
I can categorically say that the case of Carol Edwards of “Permitting an Unlicensed driver” to drive the motor vehicle did not follow proper procedure.
The case was not initialised by our own internal Investigation Unit. It was done by the officer (as named in Mr Sasako’s article as PC Steven Mae), who registered the case himself without the knowledge or the directive by the Kukum Traffic Investigation Unit.
His (PC Mae) action raises the questions, why it is so special that this officer who had nothing to do with this particular traffic accident, created a separate file (without the knowledge of others), and acted on it alone by rushing it to Court within a matter of days of the accident?
And this was at a time when evidence was yet to establish who the actual driver was.
It has never happened and I have never seen this done before in my 17-plus years in the Kukum Traffic Branch.
Looking back, I wonder why it was so easy and quick that my transfer was approved.
Why a person such as me who has the most experience, my seniors would or should have tried to persuade me not to leave? That is induce me to stay by way of recommending a promotion etc.
During my time in the Traffic Branch other officers who joined the RSIP after (and in some cases many years after I started) with little or no experience at all were promoted ahead of me.
I remain in the same rank (Constable) as I did when I was first recruited until the day I resigned from the RSIP.
It is my experience that in most cases, you would like to hold onto the people who have or are the most experienced.
Perhaps I was getting too close to the truth in the Carol Edwards case? And perhaps there are higher ranking officers (and their cohorts) who had vested interest in seeing that the Carol Edwards matter was buried!
On the same day my first article appeared in the Solomon Star, other colleague officers in Police Prosecution told me that Headquarters (Rove) rang the office, enquiring if I was still in the Police Prosecution Branch.
My former RAMSI adviser in prosecution (Andrew Williams) also rang me and asked if I wrote the article. He said, in his own words: “Harvey, did you write this article?
My response was “yes”. He replied, “it’s too perfect and well written”.
We also exchanged a few words.
During our conversation, I was asked by the RAMSI adviser to “withdraw the article”.
It was also strongly suggested that “I come out in the media and say that it was not me that wrote the article, it was someone else who is using my name”.
I was also told to go and see the DPP and that “the DPP would like to speak to you about it (referring to article I wrote)”.
Later that day, there were a few phone calls to my mobile phone which showed the number on the display screen was from the DPP’s Office. I never answered those calls and I refused to entertain the request because it was unethical.
Not long after my article was published, a retired senior police officer (a former assistant Police Commissioner) congratulated me for being honest about my findings in the Carol Edwards’ case after reading my article.
I salute you (former assistant Police Commissioner) for showing me respect and moral support.
I believe that if you were still in the RSIP, you would come to my aid and be on my side and have this case reinvestigated. Other officers rang me to congratulate me.
I can categorically say with pride that there is a very, very small group in the RSIP that are very honest, diligent, and dedicated workers, who accept nothing or ask for nothing.
Quite often you will see them walk away rather than entertain other colleague officers who ask or request them to pervert the natural course of justice (accepting bribes or utilising the wantok system, for example) when investigating a case. These officers are spread very thinly throughout the RSIP.
However, you will often find these honest officers secretly discussing a certain case which they would suspect that had been tampered with by other officers in order to pervert the natural course of justice.
In the end they are usually over-ruled, or threatened with insubordination (if higher ranking officers are involved) as what had happened to me.
Now, I wish to prompt readers in highlighting one aspect of this incident, which was reported to me (after my article appeared in the Solomon Star) by my former police colleagues.
On the day that Carol Edwards was to be charged, RAMSI adviser (Andrew Williams) once again reviewed the case file.
Based on the facts and evidence to be relied upon, he believed it was a very strong case to take to Court and to charge and detain or place in remand, Carol Edwards.
However, the RAMSI adviser ended up talking to Carol Edwards’ lawyer.
He (the RAMSI adviser) also spoke to someone from the DPP office. In the end, these people decided against proceeding to court that day to charge Carol Edwards.
Having spent time in Police Prosecution office, I believe as pointed out well in one of Mr Sasako’s articles, it is the DPP’s job to instruct and help police gather evidence to be presented in Court.
It is the prosecution’s job to go the whole way for a successful conviction. It is the defence’s job to prove otherwise.
For a RAMSI adviser to have rang the defendant’s lawyer could and would have placed themselves in a compromising position, which in this case turned out to be so i.e. the case being compromised.
It is NOT for the prosecution to be swayed by the defendant’s lawyer as this only gives an opening for the defence.
Or could it be something more sinister? Both, the defence and prosecution working to avoid additional work?
I would also like to highlight something which seems strange and contradictory to me and perhaps the readers as well.
In the Solomon Star issue no. 4130, 4 January 2010, front page titled “SHUT UP OR SHIP OUT”, DPP lashed out at Mr Alfred Sasako, quote:
He said DPP of Solomon Islands is an independent authority.
“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?”
Mr Talasasa said the DPP of Solomon Islands is not influenced by rumours, hearsay, gossips or innuendos.
“He decides on matters as on evidence.”
He further stressed that the DPP of Solomon Islands is independent of RAMSI in the performance of his official functions.
Did Mr DPP use his authority by exerting the constitutional veil the office enjoys to influence any other person in his office or otherwise ?
If the DPP says “he is not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority” (which I believe includes any RAMSI adviser(s), in both the DPP office or Police Prosecution office), is there a need for a RAMSI placement in the DPP or the Police Prosecution office?
As Mr DPP pointed out “He decides on matters as on evidence.”
Would this not be the same procedure you had in place when fresh evidence comes to hand that was not available in the original case [such as “John Tana’s”, who was wrongfully sentenced to life for murder, (refer below)] ?
Did you not review and advise the police to proceed based on the new evidence brought to you by police investigators? And, subsequently John Tana was released from Rove prison?
Would this not be the same in Carol Ewards’s case i.e. new evidence that was not available previously has now surfaced?
Are these two cases not similar in nature?
I would like to take readers to a case in an overseas jurisdiction.
It happens a lot overseas, when fresh evidence surfaces, evidence that was not available in the original trial. The police can request the Attorney General’s Chambers or the DPP’s Office for a review of the case, and overturn the initial decision.
I now draw your attention to a person that had recently visited Australia (Western Australia) on 20 February 2010; he addressed a charity dinner sponsored by local human rights group, Justice WA.
His name is Rubin “Hurricane” Carter who was convicted and sentenced to life for murder - a crime he did not commit.
Carter’s plight inspired a song written by Bob Dylan and Jacques Levy, titled “Hurricane”.
Mr Carter was sentenced to life in prison. However, he was released after 20 years in jail.
It took a bunch of University students to get him out - many working hours for free and on weekends to go over his Court files and documents to finally prove that he was innocent.
What they found was the inconsistency of vital evidence and eye witness accounts etc, the suppression of evidence by police and prosecutors etc.
What I am highlighting here is that no other person in the country of USA could give a damn about this. It took University Students to prove it so.
To me, I believe it was God’s will that this case happens to be the “case study” of the university students and played out that way it had.
My point is that the authorities sometimes for one reason or another do get it wrong, unintentionally and in some cases intentionally. I believe the saying in the law fraternity that “justice delayed is justice denied”.
It is also my intention to now open the eyes of the public by informing that in some cases which I have personally witnessed, the prosecution was less eager and enthusiastic in pursuing a conviction.
Apart from the police collecting and getting evidence, the other obstacle one must endure is when a case is presented and argued in court.
There are many ways and areas to weaken a case. One that I have seen that is the most common occurrence is for the prosecution not to turn up on time in Court on the day of the case.
Amongst others:
• Withholding critical evidence,
• Not asking or arguing prudent question(s) at the appropriate time during cross examination, not picking up on the witness or defence’s contradiction of evidence and pointing it out to the presiding Magistrate and actually arguing that liar to the full extent.
Now let’s look at the Carol Edwards matter and the facts thus far as per Certificate of Conviction reported by Mr Sasako:
CASE NAME: Carol Edwards
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE: Permitting Unlicenced Driver c/s [contrary to section] 20 (2) of Traffic Act
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE: On 23rd September 2006, being the owner of a Motor Vehicle to wit a Toyota Carina Private Car Reg. No. AB266, did permit the said Motor Vehicle whilst the said person was not the holder of a valid Diving [should have been Driving] Licence.
PLEA: Guilty
SENTENCE/ORDERS: Fine $100 in default 50 days Imprisonment. Pay before leave the country.
DATE [of the hearing]: 26th September 2006
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE: Esther Lelapitu
As can be seen in this Certificate of Conviction, there’s no mention whatsoever of the words, “fatal accident” as the DPP tried to have the public believe.
I know as the person who was brought in after that, the incident and the fact that a person died as a result of Carol Edwards’ action was never raised in Court and the presiding Magistrate did not take that into account when making her Ruling.
Let’s look at the case as it has progressed thus far based on the (false) witnesses’ statements, and police (PC Mae’s) involvement and the direction the case has now taken.
This is what has already been presented, proven in Court, and the Rulings.
Scene One:
Court decisions are based on evidence and the defendant’s pleas. Let’s run with the facts and what has been proven in Court.
• Carol Edwards has already pleaded guilty in Court for giving the keys to her car to Lyn Baura to drive, knowing Lyn does not have a valid driving licence.
• In a separate trial, Lyn Baura has been charged and pleaded guilty to have driven the vehicle (AB266) thus causing the death of a person. She was sentenced to 12 months in prison and only served 6 months.
If the DPP and RAMSI advisor(s) are taking their job seriously, then is it not correct procedure for Prosecution to turn around (at the same time, when Lyn was convicted) and also lay charges against Carol Edwards, she being the “paramount” party to the offence or accessory to the fact of the offence ?
At the same time, the other occupant in the vehicle, Agnes Kome, would also be charged for being an accessory to the fact of the offence.
These two (Carol Edwards and Agnes Kome) should have been tried separately, and the result would have been the same - serve time in jail.
Am I correct?
One would logically think, as Lyn Baura was sentenced to 12 months in prison, Carol Edwards when (and if) tried separately would result in a sentence no less than 12 months.
However, Carol Edwards, being the owner of the vehicle, a prosecutor should have no trouble in convincing the Court that Carol Edwards would together carry the burden of vicarious liability.
If information from my former police colleagues are correct, together with other material information now available has a chance to be presented in Court, I have no doubt there will be a different outcome in the Carol Edwards’ case.
I also believe that if this matter is ever returned to the Court or as Mr DPP said, “leave no stones unturned” and have a retrial, under a capable and diligent person (such as Mr Rob Barry, who has far superior outside experience than Mr Ronald Bei Talsasa’s), Mr Barry would be more than able to put up a strong case to rebuff the deceptions, conflicting witness statements and could tear through the witnesses under cross examination.
Barry’s performance was highlighted in various Solomon Star articles in (John Tana’s case) Regina v’s Morris Bolami and others. Maybe later, in another article, I can go into details of the particulars.
Scene Two – based on newly acquired evidence
Mr DPP, we now have two possible scenarios or avenues you could act upon.
The question is:
Is Mr DPP willing to review the case and overturn his earlier decision and present all the facts now available to the Court this time around as he claims (in the media) – Without Prejudice?
This would include laying charges against all the occupants in the vehicle at the time of the accident with offences ranging from:
• Not rendering assistance after an accident
• Failing to stop at the scene of an accident
• Not reporting to police
• Concealment of evidence (asking another person to drive the vehicle)
• Conspiracy to murder. Dragging and disposing of the body off the roof of the car would constitute a premeditated action. It is the prosecution’s job to go all the way. It is the defence’s job to prove otherwise. It is NOT for the prosecution to leave an opening for the defence.
• All occupants would be charged being an accessory to the fact of the offence. My understanding it is usual practice for Prosecution to trail each person separately. This would be done to ensure who had the more “say” in disposing of the body. It must be established if it was the driver, vehicle owner and or the other passenger, who instigated the action, and the appropriate sentenced be handed by the court to each of the occupants in the vehicle.
• Or at the very least, all the occupants should be charged being party to the offence of murder or manslaughter.
If I had more years’ experience in Police Prosecution I am sure there could be many more charges that I would be able to find.
In both scenarios, however, investigating officers would still have to establish this fact – which of the three (3) occupants in the vehicle instigated or encourage the pulling the body off the vehicle roof and dumping it in a dark area and not rendering assistance etc?
Mr DPP, would this alleged act not be considered a premeditated action? If it is established that it is, then other charges i.e. manslaughter or even murder would be on the list of potential charges to be laid?
Let us not forget, Mr DPP - a human life has been taken away. Or don’t you care about this fact that a person’s life has been taken away?
In this case, I believe you have failed the victim’s family and relatives in their pursuit of fair justice and compensation.
I maybe wrong, however, it is my understanding that in the very fine print of the insurance policy, the insurance company has a “right of recovery” clauses included.
The situation is when the insurance company can challenge a claim based on the fact that there has been a breach of the road rules, i.e. dangerous driving whilst in control of the vehicle, or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a person (unlicensed), has taken charge of a the vehicle with the owner’s permission causes damages (in Carol Edwards case, a loss of a human life).
In such cases the insurance company (normally) disqualify or reject the said claim.
Mr Sasako’s articles have adequately highlighted the inconsistencies and somewhat failure by the DPP office in dealing with the Carol Edwards’ case.
Why then is Mr DPP not willing to reopen and review the case file and overturn his earlier decision to undo the wrongs and initial failures of the investigating police officers ?
This is a golden opportunity for the DPP who in a recent published article had asked Mr Sasako and the public “to wait for his coming in the clouds to clear the clouds of doubts”.
I’m sure a simple move like this by the DPP would restore the public’s confidence in the judicial system to serve the people of the Solomon Islands.
As our motto says “To lead is to serve”. As a leader would this not be the correct step to take?
Will we ever see this day?
My conclusion is that it is now evident the reason given by Mr DPP and entered into the Carol Edwards file as “Nolle prosequi ”.
The only conclusion one can draw is that he did not (as claimed) consult other people in his office, as well as the police [case officer(s)] but has done so on his own merit without properly reviewing the case file himself.
Was this done on purpose?
Does Mr DPP have a conflict of interest in this matter?
Does Mr DPP care about a loss of life?
In any given Western democracy, an abuse of the Constitutional privilege results in termination and in some cases forced resignation in order to protect the integrity of the post and the Constitution of the country.
In this new age democracy, may I suggest the victim’s family and their extended family coordinate themselves to raise a petition and serve it on the Prime Minister & Cabinet, Chief Justice and the DPP’s office!
Perhaps include a peaceful demonstration.
This is what happened recently in Queensland [reported by Radio Australia or ABC news], when the Unions objected to the selling off of State Owned Assets, and marched on parliament house to present the petition.
The Queensland Premier availed herself at the front gate of Queensland parliament house to receive the Union’s petition.
Few years ago, (also reported by ABC Radio) such events occurred in Thailand, where anti government protesters “removed” the elected (former) corrupt Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.
It is time that people power stand up for their God-given right.
Say NO to the nepotism and injustice displayed by Mr DPP.
By ROBINSON HARVEY
Former police investigator
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
