Friday, 15 August 2008 11:13 AM

Guilty unless proven innocent?

There may be materials for the argument that, the 'warrantees' have all being 'proven guilty unless proven innocent.'

I don't think it is unreasonable to make such an assertion. The fact remains: those rariken wantoks (as in the words of a Form 6 colleague at KGVI, 1988) must have being aware that they were given 'arrest warrants', and yet have not responded and continued to be somewhere out in the community/villages.

I would like to think so. As the 'warrant' in discussion is an 'arrest warrant'. By definition, this is 'a document issued by a judge or magistrate that authorises the police to arrest someone. Warrants are issued when law enforcement personnel present evidence to the judge or magistrate that convinces him/her that it is reasonably likely that a crime has taken place and that the person to be named in the warrant is criminally responsible for that crime.' In short, police had evidence, the judge or magistrate is convinced, but the 'warrantee' (a recipient of a warrant issued by a court) maybe guilty already to appear to prove he's innocent!

This is just an opinion for discussion sake, am aware it may not be easily accommodated in the strictest sense of law, but I have a right to be wrong.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this letter/article are those of George Hoa'au and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Solomon Times Online.

Other Letters to the Editor All Letters
By STEVE BANI Vura Heights, East Honiara
By GEOFFREY MAURIASI USP, Lacuala Campus, Fiji
By CHARLES KOULI Gizo, Western Province