Judge orders seditious conspiracy case to proceed to trial [1]
Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 22:34. Updated on Friday, September 12, 2014 - 13:46.
Four accused People's Representatives and one former PR who are facing sedition charges may now go to trial in the Nuku'alofa Supreme Court by May this year.
The five accused are People's Representatives 'Akilisi Pohiva, 'Isileli Pulu, William Clive Edwards, 'Uliti Uata and a former PR Lepolo Taunisila who were initially each charged with conspiracy to sedition in connection with the disturbances in Nuku'alofa on November 16, 2006.
Justice Andrew in a ruling on March 27 granted an application by the Crown to file amended indictments against the accused.
Justice Andrew's decision dismissed an application by the accused to quash the indictment.
He ordered for the case to proceed to trial.
This meant the accused are now firstly charged with a joint charge of Party to a Seditious Conspiracy and as alternatives they face separate seditious counts of speaking seditious words as an individual on various dates.
This is with the exception of a separate count of sedition where all the accused are jointly charged as a part of a 'joint criminal enterprise' in relation to the alleged seditious speeches made by Pohiva, Pulu, and Uata in the Cabinet room on November 16, 2006.
Justice Andrew clarified the primary count is the one of party to a conspiracy and the seditious words counts are laid in the alternative in the event that one or all of the accused are acquitted on the conspiracy count. Alternatives in the meaning that if they are acquitted of the primary charge of conspiracy jurors will then proceed to decide on the counts of sedition.
Over two years
This sedition case got into an interlocutory stage after going through various stages in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal over the last two years.
Justice Andrew's decision on March 27 could finally set a hearing date for this alleged sedition, which took place two years and five months ago.
After considering a lengthy defence contention that there was no evidence, the judge cited the nature of the Crown case is, "that at some state before they made speeches at Pangai Si'i. They agreed that if they could not get Parliament to accept their political proposal peacefully then they would attempt to do so by inciting or encouraging lawlessness and violence by the people."
Prima facie case
"In my opinion there is evidence and reasonable grounds to believe there has occurred a conspiracy to commit an offence. I think it is reasonable to look at all the circumstances in which these events unfolded. That is the political events at Pangai Si'i which had been long standing, the role of the accused which might be considered in these events and the part they took, the things they said and what could reasonably be seen as achieving their aims by encouraging or procuring violence, disorder or resistance to law, those are matters for trial," said the judge.
"The accused have put a far more innocent interpretation on their roles but at this stage I am satisfied that nevertheless there is evidence in conspiracy in their actions and what might be inferred about their aims of political reform by means of force or violence if necessary.
"I think that there is evidence that at some stage before the accused made speeches at Pangai Si'i and at other times the accused agreed that if they could not get parliament to accept their political reform proposals peacefully, then they would attempt to do so by inciting or encouraging lawlessness and violence by the people. Whatever interpretation the accused have offered there nevertheless remains evidence of the offence having been committed sufficient to establish a Prima Facie Case," Mr Justice Andrew said.
No Prejudice
Justice Andrew said he did not see the accused were prejudiced by the adding of the seditious word counts because the evidence was largely common to both and hardly came as a surprise
He therefore granted to the Crown's application to include the sedition counts, which are now before the Court, at the same time dismissed the defence application to quash the indictments.
The case will now proceed for trial unless the defence make an appeal against this ruling.
The legal counsel were Mr Laurenson for the Crown, Dr Harrison QC for 'Uliti Uata and 'Akilisi Pohiva and Mr Edwards for himself, 'Isileli Pulu and Lepolo Taunisila.