Case commentaries
| Author | Jeremy Gans |
| Published date | 01 April 2016 |
| Date | 01 April 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1365712715625006 |
| Subject Matter | Case Commentary |
Case commentaries
Jeremy Gans
Melbourne Law School, Melbourne University, Australia
Dying declarations – Solomon Islands
dizziness, hallucinations, nausea, general body-ache, weakness, numbness of whole body, bowel inconsis-
tence, lay helpless in a stretcher. Bowel incontinence. Semi-conscious at times and response well at times. No
physical injuries seen.
Hem come insaed long room me twofala laydown long hem ia, mi stand up and go out, me talk alsem long
hem, mi like (sic) lay daon waitem man me cross long hem ia. So me go out, mi go long kitchen, so hem go
inside long nara room.
you think say wea nao bae you go. No matter you go home belong you, bae you come back yet long here ia
mi die nao.
The above statements were made by various witnesses to events in Lambi, Solomon Islands on the
evening of 19/20 September 2009 prior to the death of Monica Hanipange.
The first statement was recorded by an admitting nurse at 2am, shortly prior to the deat h, after
Hanipange was brought to a clinic by her husband, John Popoe, and their neighbour, Cecilia Vovoti.
An autopsy showed that she had died of hypovolemic shock due to an injured spleen. The issue at the
trial was whether those injuries were caused by Popoe.
The second statement was made by Popoe in a police interview concerning interactions with his wife
the previous evening. It translates as ‘She came inside the room we laid down in, I stood up and got out, I
told her I like (sic) to lay down with the person I am cross with. So I got out, I went to the kitchen, she
went into another room.’ Popoe’s trial judge, the Chief Justice of the Solomon Island s, found that
Popoe’s admission to being ‘cross with’ his wife and his movement to another room were ‘reflective
of his state of mind’ earlier that evening.
The third statement was what Popoe admitted saying to his wife at the moment he ran into her room
and sat on her shoulder. They translate as ‘Where do you think you will go? Even if you go back to your
home, you will return back here’. He had told his brother-in-law (who provided customary medicine to
his wife that evening) that he had sat on her shoulder in anger, but he later told the police that he had done
so playfully. The Chief Justice rejected the latter claim:
I find his action irregular, unnatural and abnormal. The only logical explanation is that his actions were
consistent with that of an angry man, of an assault or a deliberate act being intended and committed, than
Corresponding author:
Jeremy Gans, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street, Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia.
E-mail: Jeremy.gans@unimelb.edu.au
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2016, Vol. 20(2) 175–177
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365712715625006
epj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial