[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2003 >> [2003] VUSC 42

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Public Prosecutor v Louman [2003] VUSC 42; Criminal Case No 027 of 2003 (28 July 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 27 of 2003

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-v-

HARRY NOEL LOUMAN

Mr. Tavoa for Public Prosecutor
Ms. Pourasgheri for Defendant

RULING ON VOIR DIRE

1. A Voir Dire has been held in this case concerning a signed statement made by the defendant to Sgt. Marilyne George on the 19th May 2003.

2. I have heard evidence from the Police Sgt. and received an agreed statement of facts from counsel. I have also heard evidence from the defendant.

3. The agreed facts are as follows

(a) The accused was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant on 17 May 2003 at 19.50 hours

(b) The accused was taken by Police to the Port Vila Police station on 17 May 2003 and kept in cell 6 overnight.

(c) On 18 May 2003, the accused was transferred to the ex-British prison at seaside, Port Vila

(d) On 19 May 2003, the accused was returned to Port Vila Police Station for the purpose of being interviewed. The interview took place at the Serious Crime Office.

(e) After a statement was obtained from the accused, the accused was taken before Vanuatu Magistrate Court for determination of his bail status. The accused was remanded until 23 May 2003

(4) Sgt. George gave evidence. She had taken the statement from the defendant. She has been in the Police Force for 25 years. She has not been on duty over the weekend when the defendant was arrested but came on duty on Monday when she interviewed the defendant.

(5) She said she gave the usual caution to the defendant and explained what this meant. She told him he did not have to give any statement to her but if he did it could be used in Court as evidence against him.

(6) She said the defendant agreed to give a statement and she read back the statement to him and he then signed it. She denied that he had said to her that this was not his statement nor that there were more things which he wanted to put in it.

(7) The defendant gave evidence himself - he said he was arrested by four Police officer and placed in Cell 6 of the Police Cells. He said that this was a dark room with an iron bed and a strong smell. This was at about 7.30 at night. He said he did eat a little food, some bread, that evening .

(8) Next day he was taken to the ex-British prison where he was fed.

(9) He said he was told of his right to talk to a lawyer.

(10) On Monday he was taken back to the Police Station and interviewed by Sgt. George. He did not know the time but it was in the morning and the interview finished about 11am.

(11) He said in his evidence initially that he read the statement and it was what he told her. Later in his evidence he said some things were different from what he told her. He said he told Sgt. George that he had said to his sister if he went to jail who would look after the child and where would the money come from?

(12) In Court he denied that he had said to Sgt. George that he told his sister to kill the baby. He did say at the end of the interview that Sgt. George told him he could correct his statement.

(13) He said that he told Sgt. George "It's OK - I sign it". He said he signed it because he did not that his statement would be used in Court - if he had known that he would have corrected it.

(14) In cross-examination he confirmed he had been told by Sgt. George that he did not have to make a statement and if he did it could be used in Court. He again said however, "I just signed it".

(15) In those circumstances I hold the statement to be admissible as evidence. I do not accept the evidence of the defendant that he did not understand what he was signing nor the reasons for it. I prefer the evidence of Sgt. George which was without inconsistency.

(16) There is no evidence here of oppression or inducement or intimidation. The times involved, having regard to the fact that it was the weekend, seems to me to have been reasonable.

(17) I accept that the prosecution must prove that the statement was voluntary. I consider that has been done.

(18) Of course the conditions in which the defendant were held were unpleasant - but not in my view, to the degree that they rendered the statement inadmissible. Indeed the transfer from the police cells, which are internationally usually unsatisfactory, to the Prison was an attempt to deal with the defendant in a more civilized way.

(19) And I am convinced that he understood what he was doing and signing in making the statement he did. I think he was able to bring his mind to the matter untainted by any intimidation or inducement.

(20) I conclude that the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof upon it and the statement will be admitted as evidence.

Dated AT PORT VILA, this 28th Day of July 2003

D. J. Carruthers
Judge