HIS HONOUR: Mr Courts Officer, would you bring in the assessors, please.

ASSESSORS RETURNED [9.39am]

LEAFA VITALE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: Now, another area where I suggest that you've changed your story is in relation to the rental Suzuki. When your son was being cross-examined by Mr Toailoa, what was suggested to him was that the Suzuki was rented for a specific purpose, namely the kava plantation at Vaovai. That's correct, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: That is not correct.

MR RAFTERY: I appreciate that's not the story you told the Court when you began your evidence, but that was what was being put to your son, wasn't it, in cross-examination by Mr Toailoa?

THE INTERPRETER: Do you want me to answer that?

MR RAFTERY: Please.

THE INTERPRETER: Can we have the question again, please?

HIS HONOUR: Gentlemen Assessors, it is necessary for the lawyers and myself to consider the transcript with a view to resolving a question of evidence. It should not trouble you, so I ask you to return to the assessors' room and be patient.

ASSESSORS RETIRED [9.45am]

ASSESSORS RETURNED [10.16am]

HIS HONOUR: Gentlemen assessors, we have partly completed the task that was occupying our time. We are going on with some other matters for the time being, and I expect that by about 11 o'clock we will be able to return to the topic which led to you being asked to go into the assessor's room. Mr Raftery has indicated to me that he proposes to cross-examine on another topic for the time being. Yes, Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: Your Honour, I was just thinking about the way the proceedings began this morning. I do not remember whether the witness Leafa was re-sworn or not; I have no actual recollection of that happening.

LEAFA VITALE, resworn

HIS HONOUR: Leafa Vitale, I assume that you understood earlier this morning, when you were answering questions, that you were still on oath?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: The other matter, just to attend to from last night, your Honour, were the documents that we had been discussing together, which I would like to tender as an exhibit, which were described as two envelopes with handwritten notes of the accused Leafa thereon.

HIS HONOUR: Two envelopes with handwritten notes thereon.

MR RAFTERY: Certainly, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Any objection?

MR EPATI: No objection.

MR TOAILOA: No, your Honour.

MR RAFTERY: And I think, your Honour, it would be P40, but I will be guided by the Registrar.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR: They will be received and marked exhibit P40.

HIS HONOUR: It is not necessary for them to be examined at this stage?

MR RAFTERY: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Because they were cross-examined upon in some detail.

MR RAFTERY: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MR RAFTERY: And I do have copies for the assessors, but that could be at a later stage, your Honour, because that will not be what the topic - - - 

HIS HONOUR: Very well. Mr Raftery tells me that copies of P40, which was cross-examined upon extensively yesterday afternoon, will be available for you later. Yes, Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: If I can ask you about the events of the week leading up to the death of Luagalau. Now, as far as you were concerned, that was just another ordinary week, wasn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: What week are you referring to?

MR RAFTERY: The week leading up to Luagalau's murder.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: You were getting about your business, either in government or at the kava plantation; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: As far as you were concerned, your son, Alatise, was busy working at the kava plantation; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: On the week that the Honourable Minister was assassinated, my son did not come to the kava plantation. He did not come to that kava plantation that whole week, except on Saturday when we came from the village.

MR RAFTERY: Did you know, then, why he didn't come to the kava plantation that week?

THE INTERPRETER: The vehicle was sent to him and on one occasion I was told that he was busy. On another occasion I was told that he was sick. But I reminded the driver to let him know that - reminded him about my pigs, that I have asked him; one for the HRPP party should be in by Thursday and the other one for the Sunday to'onai should be ready by Saturday.

MR RAFTERY: So you were sending Aniseko around to his house at Malie to look for him; is that correct?

THE INTERPRETER: It is usual on Mondays and Tuesdays that I would do that, but I would only tell Aniseko once in the morning and it would be up to Aniseko to find the time to go and get him. But, if I am told that he is sick or busy, then it is left like that.

MR RAFTERY: Well, on what you have told us, as I understand it, you sent Aniseko at least twice that week to find out where he was; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall making that statement, but, if it was twice, then it was twice that I had sent him to get him, to ensure that what I have asked him to do was followed through.

MR RAFTERY: Well, the reason why I suggest that you said it was at least twice was because, as I understood your evidence, you were saying on the first occasion "I was told he was busy" and on the next "I was told he was sick", and that is why I said to you that that, in effect, suggested at least two visits. Now, have I got that wrong or not?

THE INTERPRETER: That is correct, but I say that, when I sent Aniseko, he came and he said that he was busy, that he was sick. I did not say that I sent him twice. Even if I did say that I sent him twice, that is all right.

MR RAFTERY: Did you send him once, or did you sent him twice, or did you send him more than twice?

THE INTERPRETER: You have to bear in mind that I have been in custody for close to a year now, and I'm trying to recollect things, and I said once. If I did say twice, then it was twice.

MR RAFTERY: You've told us also that you sent a message to him, through Aniseko, that, whether he was busy or sick, he still had to get the pigs ready for the Friday and for the following Sunday. That's what you're saying, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I can recall telling Aniseko to remind him about my pig for the HRPP thing on Thursday and the one on Sunday. I cannot recall saying that I told Aniseko "whether he was sick or busy" to do what I had told him to do.

MR RAFTERY: All right. If you told Aniseko to tell him that, it meant that Aniseko had to go back on another occasion, to Malie, to give him that message from you, didn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: As I had stated, Aniseko was aware of the whole program, and I had told him once, and it was up to him when to deliver the message. All I said was to ensure that those things, that the pig for the HRPP thing was ready by Thursday, and the one for the to'onai on Saturday.

MR RAFTERY: The question was: when you gave him that message to give to Alatise, it meant that he had to go to Malie to give it to him, didn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: That is correct, Aniseko should go back to deliver that message. But as I had stated, it was up to Aniseko. I had told him that, but it was up to him when to go and deliver that message, so long as the pigs are ready by Thursday and Sunday.

MR RAFTERY: So it's possible, on the events of that week as you remember them, that Aniseko went at least three times to Malie to look for Alatise. Would you agree with that?

THE INTERPRETER: That statement is wrong.

MR RAFTERY: Right. Well, how many times do you say, then, if you know that statement to be wrong, how many times do you say Aniseko went to Malie that week?

THE INTERPRETER: At the most twice, I would say. But, bearing in mind that Aniseko is married to a lady at Malie and he lives at Malie, very close. He could go to his home and call into Alatise. He goes there nearly three times a day, sir.

MR RAFTERY: So that, early in that week, you say you knew that Alatise was at home in Malie and not at the kava plantation; that is right?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: So what were you sending Aniseko to Malie for to collect Alatise on Friday?

THE INTERPRETER: I didn't get the first part.

MR RAFTERY: So what were you doing, sending Aniseko to collect Alatise from Malie, on the Friday?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know where that statement came from, and I did not send Aniseko to collect Alatise from Malie on that day.

MR RAFTERY: Well, I just remind you where it came from. The first witness, of course, that it came from was Aniseko. You will remember that he gave evidence about going to Malie at your request to collect Alatise on Friday, 16 July?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall him saying that, and I have previously stated that that evidence is full of lies. It is probably that that statement came about in his third statement, the last one that he gave to the police.

MR RAFTERY: Just so that I am not unfair to you at any later stage, when you say "I cannot recall", are you saying "it might have happened but I don't remember", or are you trying to say it never happened?

THE INTERPRETER: That whole statement is a lie.

MR RAFTERY: The other witness it came from was Upu, and she told us, didn't she, that she had heard you asking Aniseko to fetch Alatise and the time she heard that being asked of Aniseko by you was, I think, some time after midday, but she wasn't able to give a time. Do you remember that evidence?

THE INTERPRETER: I heard that. I recall that evidence, but I do not know how he or she could have heard that from inside my room, because my room has an automatic door. When a person comes in, the door would automatically close.

MR RAFTERY: That would apply, of course, if you gave that instruction to Aniseko in your room with the door automatically closed. She didn't say where it had happened, but she said she heard it. So did you say something similar to that, but she may have misheard or misunderstood?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know where that statement came from.

MR RAFTERY: And, of course, although not directly bearing on what instructions you gave Aniseko, there is the evidence of Lagi Auali'itia who told us that Aniseko did come around looking for Alatise that day. Do you remember her evidence?

THE INTERPRETER: I can recall that evidence, sir, but I have just said that Aniseko is from Malie and he goes to his family nearly every time of the day, sir. And I have said that statement is also a lie.

MR RAFTERY: And the only reason why Aniseko would have gone to Malie to bring Alatise to the Government building was because you had asked for him, isn't that correct?

THE INTERPRETER: That's a lie, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And the reason why you wanted him there that day was to make sure he was going to do the job that very night, wasn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: That is a complete lie, sir.

MR RAFTERY: That night you went back to stay at Vaovai, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And the following day you went into town, that's correct, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And, among the purposes that you had in town, was to attend the Cabinet meeting, wasn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: That is not true.

MR RAFTERY: So that wasn't among the reasons for your going to town that day, is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: The reason why I came early that day was to do the usual shopping, morning shopping, and also to bring my son, Alatise, to Apia.

MR RAFTERY: It's of course true that there was no Cabinet meeting arranged for that Saturday morning, in the normal course of events, was there?

THE INTERPRETER: There was no meeting planned to be held on that Saturday.

MR RAFTERY: But a special unscheduled Cabinet meeting was called that day because of the events of the night before, isn't that correct?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And the Cabinet meeting was originally scheduled to take place at 10 o'clock, wasn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not know that.

MR RAFTERY: But, in any event, the Cabinet meeting took place at 12 o'clock, didn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: True.

MR RAFTERY: It went on for about an hour and a half, didn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know the exact time that the Cabinet meeting broke off, unless we have confirmation from the Cabinet to that effect.

MR RAFTERY: Your recollection was it took about an hour, maybe two; that is right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: That is my recollection.

MR RAFTERY: So that, my suggestion to you that it broke up after about an hour and a half, would be consistent with your own memory, wouldn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, that would be consistent, sir, an hour and a half or two hours. It was after the formal special meeting we had casual discussions with other Ministers that were there. After that, I went back to Vaovai, as I had stated. I wanted to send Aniseko back to get what I had asked for for the Sunday.

MR RAFTERY: Because of those casual discussions that you have described, I am deliberately not putting a formal finishing time to you because there were casual discussions as different groups of Ministers talked together about the tragedy that had occurred the night before; that is right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: On your way back to Vaovai, you gave a lift, didn't you, to the Minister of Justice, Molio'o Teofilo?

THE INTERPRETER: I suppose so, sir. Perhaps that is true.

MR RAFTERY: After dropping him off, you called in at Toi's house, again only a short visit, and then you went to Vaovai. That is the correct sequence, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: That is full of errors and it is a lie. Molio'o's residence is at the road towards Tiavi and that was the road that I took. I did not come back to where Toi's house is. I dropped him off and continued to Vaovai.

MR RAFTERY: Can you think of anybody or any pair of people who look like you and Aniseko?

THE INTERPRETER: I would not know that. You will probably find them in Israel where people of the same features with Aniseko and myself could be found.

MR RAFTERY: You are not going to find another pair like you two in Apia, are we?

THE INTERPRETER: That I would not know.

MR RAFTERY: Because after dropping off Molio'o at Togafu'afu'a, I suggest you called in at Toi's. Do you agree or not?

THE INTERPRETER: I deny that and Molio'o's residence is on the way towards where I was going and that was why I brought him along. If that was true then it meant that I would have to go back to where you are suggesting and I am saying that is a lie.

MR RAFTERY: Well, let us not worry about Molio'o. Let us go back to Toi's place at Vaimoso. Can you think of anything that happened, as you were going through Vaimoso, that might have mistakenly looked, to someone travelling on a bus home that afternoon, like you and Toi waving goodbye to each other?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot think of an occasion where that could be possible, sir, where people that look similar to me would be at that place, waving at each other, sir. And also, Toi has a very similar van to the one that is referred to, (the same) colour, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Well, that might explain why Ututau Pasese saw that vehicle, but it wouldn't explain why you were outside it, waving goodbye, and then got into it, and Aniseko was driving it, would it?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, that whole statement is not correct, and I do not accept that statement. When he gave evidence, he firstly said that he saw this van reversing, and then he again said that he saw me outside that van, waving to Toi, sir. If you look at that area, getting from the front of Toi to the vehicle would not take one minute, sir, probably a matter of seconds, sir. And those are the reasons why I do not accept that witness' statement.

MR TOAILOA: Your Honour, the witness also made reference to the contradiction in what that witness, Ututau, said in his statement to the police and what he said in oral testimony. The witness here, Leafa, did mention that, "I do recall Ututau's statement which he made the day before to the police where he said that 'I was in the van and the van was reversing', but when he gave oral evidence, he said that I was outside the van." Now, that is the part, your Honour, that the Registrar did not quite bring out in the translation.

HIS HONOUR: Is that correct, Mr Registrar?

THE INTERPRETER (SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF): Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR: That can be noted in terms of the complete transcript, which, of course, is an interpretation into English of what the witness said in Samoan. The assessors have had what the witness said in Samoan. I realise, Mr Raftery, you may want to pursue this further, but I do want to now take the morning break, seeing there has been some interruption of your cross-examination.

MR RAFTERY: Certainly, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: I criticise no one for that.

HIS HONOUR: Gentlemen assessors, we will have the morning break now. Would you please go with the Courts Officer?

ASSESSORS RETIRED [10.54am]

[HIS HONOUR TO COUNSEL]

RESUMED [11.21am]

HIS HONOUR: Mr Courts Officer, would you bring in the assessors, please.

ASSESSORS RETURNED [11.22am]

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: Now, at that Cabinet meeting at midday, there had been a report to Cabinet, hadn't there, from the Attorney-General and from the Commissioner of Police bringing Cabinet up to date with the then state of the police inquiries into the matter?

THE INTERPRETER: That is correct.

MR RAFTERY: I think there had also been some advice of some future plans over the next few days of what the Commissioner would be doing, among other things, for the welfare and safety of Cabinet Ministers?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: So, when you left that Cabinet meeting that afternoon, I suggest that, one of the things that you would have wanted to have done was to bring your friend Toi up to date with what was happening and how far the police inquiries had got; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is not correct.

MR RAFTERY: Of course, you've told us that your view of Toi last year was that he was mentally unsound. That's right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Well, that was my own personal opinion, and what I see of him, sir, that he was not mentally capable, sir, but as I had stated, sir, I am not a doctor.

MR RAFTERY: And so you were particularly concerned to make sure that he kept his mouth shut, weren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Who are you referring to, the person that you want the mouth shut?

MR RAFTERY: You wanted to make sure that Toi kept his mouth shut, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: That is very wrong, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And the other thing you wanted to do was to tell him to make sure he kept his man's mouth shut as well?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know where those thoughts and those statements came from.

MR RAFTERY: So those, I suggest, were basically three reasons why you wanted to see Toi that afternoon before you went home?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know where that statement came from, sir. I do not understand a thing about this.

MR RAFTERY: And even if the story that Toi is going to tell next week is true, as opposed to what I'll be suggesting to him, you would still want to make sure that he kept his mouth shut, wouldn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know where that statement came from, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Toi, you've told us, was one of your friends last year, and from before that as well, isn't that correct?

THE INTERPRETER: Toi is a Member of Parliament, likewise I am a Member of Parliament, and we are members of the same Party, HRPP.

MR RAFTERY: Well, I'm not quite sure whether you're therefore agreeing with what I've put to you, or disagreeing. Can you just tell us?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know which statement that you want me to confirm, sir.

MR RAFTERY: The question which I had asked was - I'll rephrase it - but you and Toi were friends, weren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: The inference there is that we were friends, but we are now no longer friends.

MR RAFTERY: Were you friends last year? "Yes" or "no"?

HIS HONOUR: I think you should specify, "before the assassination".

MR RAFTERY: Yes, before the assassination. I am grateful to your Honour.

THE INTERPRETER: We worked together with Toi in ensuring that electricity is delivered to the whole of Samoa. I do not know if I could term that "friendship" or "working together".

MR RAFTERY: When did you first enter Parliament?

THE INTERPRETER: 1988.

MR RAFTERY: When did you first enter Cabinet?

THE INTERPRETER: In what capacity are you referring to, because I was involved with Cabinet right from the beginning, 1988, up to now.

MR RAFTERY: Were you in the Cabinet right from 1988?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, I was a consultant for Cabinet. I looked after all the plant, the machinery, and all the tools, sir, and I was, from time to time, called in by Cabinet, requiring me to report, sir. And that was from 1988 up to 1991 when I was official appointed a Minister.

MR RAFTERY: So when in 1991 did you become a Minister?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot really recall that, but I can recall it was 1991 that I became a Minister.

MR RAFTERY: And Toi was a Member of Parliament before you became one, is that correct?

THE INTERPRETER: A fair distance apart, sir. Toi became a Member of Parliament before me, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Did you know him before you, yourself became a Member of Parliament?

THE INTERPRETER: No, sir, I only knew him when I became a Member of Parliament, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And so, after you became a Member of Parliament, you and he were both colleagues in the same Party, that's right?

THE INTERPRETER: We were together in the HRPP.

MR RAFTERY: And, after you became a Cabinet Minister, you were both Cabinet Ministers together, weren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And so, the question was quite a simple one: in those years, did you and he become friends?

THE INTERPRETER: Well, I befriend all of HRPP members, sir. I do not know the definition of friendship that you are talking, sir, but I know, and I am acquainted to all HRPP members, sir.

MR RAFTERY: I'm not talking about whether you knew Toi or were acquainted with him; and I'm not talking about any other members of the HRPP. I'm just asking whether you would describe yourself as a friend of Toi's - it's two questions I know I'm asking - and you would describe Toi as a friend of yours?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not really understand what the question is aiming at. I had stated that I befriend all HRPP members. I am a friend to Toi, a friend to all of the HRPP Party.

HIS HONOUR: Do not worry, Leafa Vitale, what the question is aiming at; just answer it, please.

MR TOAILOA: Your Honour, I think he has answered the question in that last reply. He said that he is a friend of Toi and he is a friend of all the members of the HRPP.

HIS HONOUR: Well, it is an answer, in the sense that it was a response to the question. I am not sure that I agree that it was an answer to a fairly specific question. Mr Raftery, you are cross-examining.

MR RAFTERY: Can I just tell you to forget every other member of the HRPP, and just concentrate on Toi. Were you and he friends before the assassination of the Honourable Luagalau?

HIS HONOUR: And, witness, I think that question can be answered "yes" or "no".

THE INTERPRETER: I have already answered that I did befriend all the HRPP members, including Toi, sir.

MR RAFTERY: As I indicated to you, I am not asking about any other member of the HRPP. I want to know about your's and Toi's relationship.

THE INTERPRETER: And what relationship are you wanting to know?

MR RAFTERY: And you're finding enormous difficulty in giving a straightforward answer to a very simple question, as to whether you and he were friends, aren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: I have already answered that. I said that I am friend to Toi, and to all other members of the Party. I cannot just have Toi as a friend and not the other members of the Party, sir. The question is now asked as to the relationship, that is a different question.

MR RAFTERY: Well, has it got a different answer then?

THE INTERPRETER: That is the same answer, sir, that I am a friend to all members of the HRPP, including Toi.

MR RAFTERY: So, are you trying to say by that, that really he's nothing special, just like any other member of the HRPP?

THE INTERPRETER: That is the respect that I give them, to Toi and to all other members of the HRPP, because they are members of the constituency they represent, the dignity of their respective constituencies.

MR RAFTERY: And the reason, I suggest, why you're finding the question so difficult is that you're now furious with Toi because, in his interview with the police, which you must have learned about in August or September last year, you found out that he'd "let the cat - no, part of the cat out of the bag", didn't he, when he spoke to the police, and that's why you won't describe him as a friend now. Isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is very wrong, sir, and none of that is accepted by me.

MR RAFTERY: When you say "that is very wrong", would that include the fact that you're not the least bit upset about what Toi told the police last year and is going to tell us next week; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: There is no cause for me to be upset with Toi. His statement against me that was given to the police is his own right. But, as I had stated and have maintained right from the beginning when I was arrested by the police, that I know nothing about this whole thing.

MR RAFTERY: Another reason, perhaps, I suggest, why you are anxious to avoid describing him and yourself as friends, is because you want to disassociate yourself from him in the course of this trial because he is telling a very different story to you; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is very wrong, sir.

MR RAFTERY: That, I suggest, will be a story that will get considerably closer to the truth than you ever have (or ever will) in the rest of your evidence; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is entirely up to you. Whatever you say against me, I maintain that I know nothing about this whole thing.

MR RAFTERY: So if Toi was just a friend, like every other member of the HRPP is a friend, even on your own interpretation of your relationship, there would be reason, wouldn't there, for you to call in and see Toi on your way home after that Cabinet meeting on 17 May?

HIS HONOUR: 17th of - - - 

MR RAFTERY: Sorry, 17 July.

THE INTERPRETER: That is very wrong. I have already answered that, after dropping off Molio'o, I proceeded straight to Tua, sir. The statement that is said that I went to Toi is very wrong.

MR RAFTERY: But if you think about it, Leafa, you and he had been fellow Cabinet Ministers for five years, hadn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Toi was sort of an elder statesman of the Party, wasn't he?

THE INTERPRETER: He was called a senior in the Party because he has been in the Party longest, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And had been an MP for a long time, hadn't he?

THE INTERPRETER: I have stated already that he was there before me.

MR RAFTERY: And he had not been at the HRPP party the night before, had he?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not see Toi on that night.

MR RAFTERY: Just so I understand your answer, are you saying, "He might have been there and I might not have seen him", or are you accepting that he wasn't at the party?

THE INTERPRETER: I had already answered that I did not see Toi on that night.

MR RAFTERY: And so, where Toi lives is maybe a couple of minutes from the Government building by car, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: From where, sir?

MR RAFTERY: From the Government building.

THE INTERPRETER: Well, depending on the traffic, sir. If it's a busy day and the traffic is blocked, it would probably take you 10 to 15 minutes. If it's free-flow traffic, sir, five minutes.

MR RAFTERY: So that it would be the most natural thing in the world, wouldn't it, for you to call in on one of the senior members of your Party to bring him up to date with what was happening following the tragic events of the night before, wouldn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know where those statements and those words came from, sir.

MR RAFTERY: I'll try again. It would be quite a natural thing for you to do, wouldn't it, to call in on a former Cabinet colleague, a senior member of the Party, and bring him up to date with what was happening following the tragic events of the night before, wouldn't you agree?

THE INTERPRETER: No, the matter had been discussed by Cabinet and it was finished. I have other important errands to do, to use my time.

MR RAFTERY: I wasn't asking about whether you did it or not, I was just asking you to say whether you would agree that it would be quite a natural thing for someone to call on a former Cabinet colleague, a senior member of the Party, a friend, who had not been at the party the night before and witnessed the tragic events, to bring him up to date with what was happening. Wouldn't you agree that's a natural thing for someone in that position to do?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not agree with that, because the matter had been in the hands of the police and I am sure Toi would learn about that matter at the appropriate time. Not only that, but, by telling Toi, it will not bring back Leva.

MR RAFTERY: But the fact - let's move away from you and Toi - the fact that two Cabinet Ministers may be seen talking together, or the fact that a Cabinet Minister and a former Cabinet Minister may be seen talking together in the immediate aftermath of Luagalau's assassination would not, in any way, be odd or suspicious, would it?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not agree with that, and the reason is because I do not accept Ututau Pasese's statement. None of his statement is acceptable to me, sir. He said that he saw us with Toi standing, "waving at each other". I have stated that, after the Cabinet meeting, I went straight to Vaovai.

MR RAFTERY: The question wasn't about Ututau, was it?

THE INTERPRETER: But my answer is in reference to Ututau's evidence. He said that it was on Saturday the 17th that he saw us talking with Toi.

MR RAFTERY: Well, I know that is what your answer was, but it wasn't an answer to the question, so I will try the question again and see if you can answer it. If two Cabinet Ministers had been seen talking together after Luagalau was shot, there would have been nothing peculiar or suspicious about it, would there?

THE INTERPRETER: The reason why I do not agree with that is because we did not talk with Toi on the 17th after the shooting of Luagalau.

MR RAFTERY: Again, I am not talking about Toi. If two Cabinet Ministers, say Tuala, who gave the evidence as the first witness in this case, and Molio'o were seen talking together on 17 July last year, there would be nothing suspicious about it, would there?

THE INTERPRETER: That is entirely up to a person, sir, whether he likes to talk to another person. What else is there to discuss? All matters had been raised and discussed in Cabinet.

MR RAFTERY: You and Molio'o would have talked about it, wouldn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: I thought you agreed that you'd given him a lift home?

THE INTERPRETER: I dropped him at home, sir.

MR RAFTERY: But you mean you and he never discussed the death of Luagalau?

THE INTERPRETER: If I was driving the vehicle, we would have discussed that with Molio'o, but that is prohibited, sir. In the presence of another person, no Cabinet matters should be discussed.

MR RAFTERY: And the reason why you're so anxious to say that nothing like this ever happened, and the reason why you're so anxious not to agree that there's nothing suspicious about two people talking about it, two Cabinet ministers talking about it, is because you know the reason why you and Toi met that afternoon was not to discuss just a matter of public interest, but yours and his involvement in it. Isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: The reason why I am saying that is wrong is because, if that is your conclusion, then that is your's alone. But I am saying that nothing like that happened between me and Toi after the death of Luagalau.

MR RAFTERY: Anyone passing by two people, a Cabinet Minister and a former Cabinet Minister, any two people in that category, not just you or Toi, but anyone, would have thought that such a meeting would be entirely innocent. Would you agree?

THE INTERPRETER: No, because no one can dictate what should be in the other person's mind, sir. People have a different interpretation of what they see.

MR RAFTERY: And I suggest the reason why you're denying that this meeting took place is not because it never did, but because it was in fact a guilty meeting, between you and a fellow conspirator, in the plan to kill Luagalau. Isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, the reason why I deny that nothing happened was because nothing ever happened. But, if that is what counsel is concluding, then that is entirely up to his conclusion.

MR RAFTERY: And what you say, in effect, is that Ututau Pasese is another person we should put on, what I might call, your long list of liars, is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: He would over 100 per cent be lying, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Have you ever done anything, or said anything, to Ututau Pasese to make him want to lie about you or get back at you in some way?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know that.

MR RAFTERY: I didn't catch the answer.

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know that.

HIS HONOUR: I would like to adjourn in a moment. Is this a convenient time?

MR RAFTERY: It is, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. We will break off now for the luncheon adjournment. I remind you, Leafa Vitale, not to discuss your evidence. Gentlemen assessors, we will have the luncheon adjournment now. If you would please go with the Courts Officer.

ASSESSORS RETIRED [12.03pm]

HIS HONOUR: Mr Registrar, would you please adjourn the Court until 2 pm this afternoon.

RESUMED [2.08pm]

HIS HONOUR: Mr Courts Officer, would you bring in the assessors, please.

ASSESSORS RETURNED [2.08pm]

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: When you were interviewed by the police, you explained that you had no reason to be angry or upset with Luagalau, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: But you were quick to point the finger at Toi, weren't you, by saying words to the effect that he should be angry with Luagalau because his contract had been stopped; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is not correct.

MR RAFTERY: Do you agree you said that to the police or not?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, but that was not the case. It was not as if I was quick in blaming him.

MR RAFTERY: Well, you certainly were suggesting, weren't you, to the police that you had no motive to kill Luagalau but Toi did, weren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: I concede that was what I said and I was not angry with Luagalau, sir, but I was not quick in blaming him, as you said.

MR RAFTERY: But you were saying, weren't you, that Toi had a motive to kill Luagalau, weren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Can I make a brief statement concerning that statement?

MR RAFTERY: Well, first of all, could you just answer the question. You were saying, weren't you, that Toi had a motive to kill Luagalau?

THE INTERPRETER: As I have stated, I cannot - I will not answer that if I am not allowed to make an explanation, sir, concerning that statement.

MR RAFTERY: I have told you that I won't seek to stop you making the statement you want to make, but I just wonder whether you could try and answer the question that I have asked before you make it. The question, just so that you remember, was: you were saying to the police, weren't you, that Toi had a motive to kill Luagalau?

THE INTERPRETER: I would say that is not correct, if I am not given a chance to explain the discussion that I had with the police officer.

MR RAFTERY: So, are you saying it might be correct if you are given the opportunity to explain?

THE INTERPRETER: There were reasons, sir, because that discussion was just a discussion to await the arrival of my lawyer, it was not a written discussion, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And is that the explanation that you've been waiting to make?

THE INTERPRETER: I denied this right from the beginning, even at the pre-trial that we had, I denied that statement, sir. It was just a casual discussion that we had awaiting my lawyer, sir. The discussion continued, and up to the point I made a comment that, if Toi was angry, he should be, because Luagalau had cut his contract. It was not as if I offered that statement immediately after I was asked.

MR RAFTERY: After the formal introductions by Inspector Fou of himself and Detective Inspector Shortland from New Zealand, he asked you this question, didn't he, "Is there anything that you know about the death of Luagalau?", do you agree?

THE INTERPRETER: That is correct.

MR RAFTERY: And it was in answer to that that you said that there was nothing that made you angry with Luagalau, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: That is true.

MR RAFTERY: And you went on to add, "Except for Toi. If he is angry, then he should be, because Luagalau has stopped his contract"?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, that was the part that I strongly denied at the pre-trial. I made a statement in the pre-trial, and I said that those were added to the statement, sir, the part where Toi is mentioned, and I deny that, it is untrue.

MR RAFTERY: You mean that's been added by Inspector Fou, do you?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know who did it.

MR RAFTERY: Well, Inspector Fou is the one who said that that's what he's got written down in his notebook that you said. Are you saying you never said it to Inspector Fou, and he's just written it down in his notebook?

THE INTERPRETER: All those matters were raised in the pre-trial, and I denied having said those words. I said that all those things were added, and I did not know who added them. All I said was, I wanted my lawyer.

MR RAFTERY: You didn't mention that until two questions later, did you?

THE INTERPRETER: It was right at the beginning, before the questions were asked, that I said that I wanted my lawyer. It was while we were sitting, discussing and talking, and nothing was recorded, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Because what was told us by Inspector Fou was the next thing he asked you, it was in relation to your son being charged with the death of Luagalau, and you made a reply which included the phrase, "But, look, no stupid father would instruct his son to do a bad thing like that." Do you agree that or don't you?

THE INTERPRETER: I am sure I made that statement while we were sitting there awaiting my lawyer. We were having this casual discussion. That comment was brought up, and I made a comment to the effect, it would be "no stupid father that would instruct his son to do a bad thing like that." And I also insisted that I wanted a lawyer.

MR RAFTERY: And you did that after the third question, which was really an assertion by Inspector Fou that "we know you were the one that instructed your son to shoot Luagalau." And you denied that, and that was the time at which you made a first request for a lawyer, isn't that correct?

THE INTERPRETER: That statement is very wrong, sir. I wanted my lawyer right at the beginning, before the questions were asked. While we were having this casual discussion awaiting a lawyer, I did not know that it was being recorded, sir. I made that comment, as I had stated, sir. "No stupid father would instruct his son to do that", but I insisted before the questioning that "I want my lawyer".

MR RAFTERY: And so, leaving the question of your lawyer, which you dispute, what Inspector Fou said about it, but the other thing you say you never said anything about was Toi and the contract that had been terminated by Luagalau; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: The statement that I did not say that is wrong, because it was while we were having this discussion, and, the fact that Toi was also arrested, that I made the comment to the effect that, "if Toi was angry, then he should, because of the contract." And those were the comments that I made during this casual discussion awaiting the lawyer.

MR RAFTERY: So you did say that to Inspector Fou; is that what you're now saying?

THE INTERPRETER: I mentioned that during our discussion. It was not written down, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Well, forget the time at which it was written down, or whether it was written down, I just want a simple answer to the question: do you now agree you did say words to that effect to Inspector Fou?

THE INTERPRETER: I concede that I made comments to that effect while we were having that discussion awaiting my lawyer. There were several other matters, there were several other questions that were raised during that discussion. That was not the only matter.

MR RAFTERY: What were the others?

THE INTERPRETER: I was asked if I knew that Toi had been arrested, and I replied, "No, I did not know."

MR RAFTERY: Anything else?

THE INTERPRETER: There were other things that I cannot recall, but I am definite that we spent a while, sir, awaiting my lawyer.

MR RAFTERY: The account of the interview that Inspector Fou gave wasn't in any way disputed by your lawyer, was it?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, that is entirely up to my lawyer how to argue that point, but it was not - it was more than half an hour of the waiting for the lawyer.

MR RAFTERY: Did you give him any instructions to dispute the account given by Inspector Fou?

THE INTERPRETER: All I did, sir, was to tell the lawyer the truth. To tell him everything, sir. It is not my job to tell him what to do and how to run the case, sir. That is his job.

MR RAFTERY: Because the point about it is this: that when Inspector Fou was asking you what you knew about the death of Luagalau, you said, in effect, "Nothing, but look at Toi, he had a motive." Isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I had already denied that statement, sir. I had already denied that that comment was made immediately after I was asked about that. I had already stated that we had a discussion for at least half an hour before that comment was made, sir, and there were several other comments.

MR RAFTERY: Because, of course, you did know all about Toi's motive for wanting to kill Luagalau, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: I know nothing about it.

MR RAFTERY: Could you look, please, at exhibit 17A. That is a letter, isn't it, dated 19 May, written to the Prime Minister by the Honourable Luagalau Levaula Kamu; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: In it he explains to the Prime Minister why Toi's contract for tree-trimming has not been renewed and the work is going to be done by EPC staff themselves; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is true.

MR RAFTERY: That was part of a cost-cutting exercise by the Minister responsible for the EPC at the time to try and reduce the deficit, basically, of that organisation; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is true.

MR RAFTERY: You knew, therefore, didn't you, that Toi had had that tree-cutting contract not renewed - or had not had that contract renewed, I should say; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is very true.

MR RAFTERY: Because the Honourable Luagalau sent you a copy of that letter, didn't he?

THE INTERPRETER: Very true, sir.

MR RAFTERY: That is the copy that we have in Court as an exhibit, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: True.

MR RAFTERY: You hadn't had anything to do with EPC, had you, for some time?

THE INTERPRETER: What time are you referring to, since I have been arrested, or when I was removed, when the chairmanship of the EPC was taken away from me?

MR RAFTERY: When this letter of 19 May 1999 was sent to you, you had not been Minister with responsibility for the EPC for over five months, had you?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: So a copy was sent to you, presumably because you were still expressing some interest in Toi's tree-cutting contract being renewed; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know the reason.

MR RAFTERY: Well, in the normal course of events, the Minister responsible for the EPC, who was then the Honourable Luagalau, would be sending a copy of that letter to Toi, wouldn't he, because it would explain to him what he was saying to the Prime Minister about not renewing his contract; that would be fair enough, wouldn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know the reason why a copy was sent to me.

MR RAFTERY: So was it a surprise when you got one?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: So why did you think you had been sent a copy?

THE INTERPRETER: I think it was because it was during my time that this contract was hired to do the tree trimming contract, but there were reasons, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And presumably Toi had come around to see you about it, and complained to you about the non-renewal of his tree cutting contract?

THE INTERPRETER: From recollection, Toi mention that once, and I told him to be patient, the next general election is not far off, probably a change of Government will appear.

MR RAFTERY: Did he just mentioned it casually to you once, or did he go on about it, or what?

THE INTERPRETER: That is my recollection. He just mentioned it once, sir, and we did not discuss it, we talked about matters.

MR RAFTERY: So, was it just a very casual sort of mention, rather than something that he'd come to see you about, and complain and make a lot of fuss and noise about?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: So, why did you think that it was sufficiently important for you to say to Inspector Fou that this was a possible motive for Toi to want to kill Luagalau?

THE INTERPRETER: I have already answered that question, and I deny that statement, sir. I had already stated, sir, that, if you look at the statement from that discussion, it would only take five minutes, when actually the discussion took more than half an hour. Where is the rest of the discussion?

MR RAFTERY: Forget how long it took. What I want to know is, why was it so important to you to mention it to the police at all?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, I had said that when - when we first started, sir, I asked about my lawyer, and when we had that discussion, sir, it was not as if that was recorded at that time, it was just a discussion. And if you look at the duration of this discussion, that was raised when I was told that Toi was also arrested, and then I made that comment, that "if he should be angry, then he should."

MR RAFTERY: Why, when you were being spoken to about the murder of Luagalau, was it important for you to mention Toi's tree-cutting contract being terminated by Luagalau?

THE INTERPRETER: It was not an important issue that I raised and said that this should be recorded. No, it was part of a discussion that we had. The matter of Toi was raised and I, likewise, made a comment to that effect, but not part of a discussion that was to be recorded.

MR RAFTERY: Why were you at the police station?

THE INTERPRETER: They said that I murdered Luagalau.

MR RAFTERY: So, when they were saying that to you, and that is why you were there, what I want to know is why, in the course of a discussion, did you bother to mention Toi's anger at losing his tree-cutting contract at all?

THE INTERPRETER: I have mentioned it probably ten times now, sir. I said that it was part of a casual discussion that we had. We were talking and they mentioned the arrest of Toi and I, likewise, made that comment, that it was not something that was recorded at that time.

MR RAFTERY: Toi had also been arrested for the same murder as you, hadn't he?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not know the reason. All I was told was that Toi was, himself, arrested.

MR RAFTERY: Had you got any idea why Toi had been arrested?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not know anything.

MR RAFTERY: Well, when you heard Toi had been arrested, you said this came as a big surprise to you; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I was not surprised.

MR RAFTERY: Why weren't you surprised?

THE INTERPRETER: Because I did not believe Toi would do such a thing.

MR RAFTERY: Well, why were you not surprised when he was arrested for doing such a thing?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not believe that an old man like Toi would do such a thing.

MR RAFTERY: So, when you found out he had been arrested, did you ask the police, "Why has by good HRPP friend, Toi, been arrested?"

THE INTERPRETER: The police told me that, it was not I that asked the police.

MR RAFTERY: They told you that he'd been arrested for Luagalau's murder, did they?

THE INTERPRETER: They only said that Toi had been arrested.

MR RAFTERY: So, when you heard he'd been arrested and you didn't know what for, did you ask?

THE INTERPRETER: Ask who?

MR RAFTERY: The people you were talking to?

THE INTERPRETER: Are you referring to the police officers?

MR RAFTERY: Were you talking to anybody else?

THE INTERPRETER: To the police.

MR RAFTERY: Right. Well then, it's obvious who I mean, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not wish to ask any police officers.

MR RAFTERY: Why not?

THE INTERPRETER: I wanted my lawyer.

MR RAFTERY: You mean, you were waiting for Mr Toailoa to come, to find out why Toi had been arrested, were you?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, I wanted Toleafoa, sir, to represent them, and that was my business, sir. I did not want to interfere with the other person's business.

MR RAFTERY: So, you didn't want to ask why Toi was arrested, is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Ask who?

MR RAFTERY: The police?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: So why, when you heard he had been arrested for some unknown crime, did you bother to tell the police, in the course of that casual conversation, that Toi should be angry with Luagalau, because he'd lost his tree-cutting contract?

THE INTERPRETER: They have advised me that they had arrested Toi, and I was also being arrested, sir, and then we had that casual discussion that I had stated. I'm also asking about the rest of the casual discussion that we had for nearly half an hour.

MR RAFTERY: I understand all that. What I want to know is, why on earth did you think it was relevant, or helpful, or might be interesting to the police, for them to know what you thought about Toi and his anger at losing the tree-cutting contract?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, I would not know that, because it was just a casual discussion on various topics, sir. Now it's being put that, immediately after I was being asked, I made that comment, sir, when I had stated that the duration of the discussion was at least 30 minutes.

MR RAFTERY: I understand all that. Try once more, see if you can help us. Can you give us any reason why you thought it would be relevant, or interesting, or useful, for the police to know, during that half hour general conversation that you were having with them, what you thought about Toi being angry about losing his tree-cutting contract?

THE INTERPRETER: I don't know.

MR RAFTERY: And are you seriously asking us to believe that you didn't have a clue why Toi had been arrested; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Well, we had that general discussion, sir, and, during that general discussion, it was mentioned that Toi had been arrested. And, as it continued, I made a comment, according to the paper that was copied to me, "Well, because the Board had terminated Toi's contract."

MR RAFTERY: I'll try the question again, Leafa. A few minutes ago you told us you had absolutely no idea why Toi was under arrest. That's right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: When did you ask that question?

MR RAFTERY: A short while ago.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Yes, another question?

MR RAFTERY: You knew your son had been arrested for the murder of Luagalau, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: That is true.

MR RAFTERY: You knew that the police were busy looking for those involved with Luagalau's murder, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: If what I am thinking is correct, I only learnt about the business of the police when I went and found that they had searched my office and my vehicle.

MR RAFTERY: You knew the police were looking for those involved in the murder of Luagalau from the time of Luagalau's murder, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: That is very true.

MR RAFTERY: And you knew that they had arrested your son in connection with that murder, a week before they arrested you, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Very correct, sir.

MR RAFTERY: You knew that you were arrested in connection with Luagalau's murder, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: That was in the paper. That was said in the paper, that I murdered Luagalau.

MR RAFTERY: It wasn't just said in the paper, it was said by the police to you, wasn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: You say that you also learned, while at the police station, something that was news to you, namely that Toi had been arrested the day before you were arrested; that is correct, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: You told us a few minutes ago that you hadn't the slightest clue why Toi had been arrested; that is right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: You did not, in any way, suspect that his arrest had anything to do, whatsoever, with the death of Luagalau; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I have already answered that question.

MR RAFTERY: Can you just remind us what the answer was?

THE INTERPRETER: Unless the question is re-put then I will try and recollect that answer.

MR RAFTERY: Do you have any idea what I have just been asking you about?

THE INTERPRETER: That was why I asked to re-put the question, please.

MR RAFTERY: So you don't know what I have just been asking you about; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Several questions have been put with the same meaning or nearly the same meaning.

MR RAFTERY: You say you hadn't the faintest idea why Toi had been arrested; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: You didn't have the slightest suspicion it had anything to do with Luagalau's death; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I have already answered it and I can now recall my answer. I said that no old man like Toi, 68 years old, would have that kind of thought in his mind.

MR RAFTERY: So the answer is, no, you didn't think he had anything to do at all with the death of Luagalau; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is true.

MR RAFTERY: Hadn't the police made a press release on the day Toi was arrested, not naming him by name, but indicating his arrest and saying that the person would appear in Court the following morning?

THE INTERPRETER: That is one of the things that I don't do. I read once, or only once or twice a year, a newspaper, because, every time they print, it would be to defame Government, including myself.

MR RAFTERY: Ever watch Tala Fou?

THE INTERPRETER: That is the same thing.

MR RAFTERY: But, of course, this particular period following the assassination of Luagalau was a very special time in Samoa's history, wasn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: That is true.

MR RAFTERY: Not just because a Cabinet Minister had been assassinated, but for you, personally, one of your close friends, someone you loved very much, had been murdered; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: True.

MR RAFTERY: And you didn't bother to read a newspaper, or watch the television at all, to find out whether the police were being successful in capturing those dreadful people responsible for it?

THE INTERPRETER: Everything will come back to Cabinet, sir. As I had stated, we had that meeting on the 17th, and I will not waste my time, sir, looking up in other areas.

MR RAFTERY: So that, do I understand you correctly,

you would say that you were possibly one of the few people in Samoa who knew that the police had made a second arrest in the murder hunt for Luagalau's killers?

THE INTERPRETER: Who is that second person that you are referring to in that question?

MR RAFTERY: Toi.

THE INTERPRETER: I have already answered that I had stated my doubt, sir, about Toi being the one that did that thing.

MR RAFTERY: But, as I understand it, at the time that you were arrested on the afternoon of 4 August, you didn't have a clue that the police had made a second arrest; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not know.

MR RAFTERY: If you could look, please, at exhibit 17B. Now, that is a letter from the Prime Minister to your fellow accused, Toi, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Very true, sir.

MR RAFTERY: It's dated 24 May, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And, in the first paragraph, the Prime Minister indicates:

Regarding your application, I have attached an explanation by the Minister of EPC which I had been awaiting.

That's right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: True.

MR RAFTERY: So that the attachment to this document, 17B, was that letter that we've just looked at, a moment ago, of 19 May, wasn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not understand that, sir, because I do not know how that paper came onto my desk.

MR RAFTERY: Are you talking about the piece of paper you're looking at now, or, when you say "that paper", do you mean the one you've just been looking at before?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, this document [the witness holding up the Prime Minister's letter].

MR RAFTERY: So that is the, just for the record, exhibit 17B, the one dated 24 May, isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, 24 May, sir.

MR RAFTERY: We have heard from Inspector Fou that that was found in the same folder of papers, although not immediately next to, the document, 17A, the letter of 19 May. Now, do you accept that that's where it was found, or do you say it wasn't found there?

THE INTERPRETER: I strongly deny that, sir. This is the first time that I have seen that document.

MR RAFTERY: So, just so that I'm clear, are you saying, "It was not in my folder of documents", or are you saying, "I accept it might have been in my folder of documents, but I don't know who put it there"?

THE INTERPRETER: This is the first time that I am seeing this document.

MR RAFTERY: It is a document, of course, not addressed to you. That's right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I can see it is addressed to Toi.

MR RAFTERY: I'm suggesting to you, Leafa, that the reason why it's in your folder is because Toi came round to see you to tell you how upset and angry he was at the loss of his tree-cutting contract, and that's reflected in the letter of 19 May. That's right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, not only that whole statement is a lie, but this is the first time that I am seeing this document.

MR RAFTERY: And I suggest that's how you knew how angry Toi was with the loss of his tree-cutting contract. That's right, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not know what was in Toi's mind.

MR RAFTERY: So, you never had any idea, is that right, that he was upset at losing his tree-cutting contract?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not know what Toi had in mind.

MR RAFTERY: And so, just see if you are able to answer this one "yes" or "no', if you can. Did you have any idea that Toi was upset at losing his tree-cutting contract?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know the meaning of "unhappy" in that question. But, when Toi came and mentioned that his contract had been removed, it was in a normal fashion, it did not seem as if he was angry. All I said was, "Be patient. The next general election is not far out."

MR RAFTERY: So, just so that I understand you correctly, do you say that, when Toi mentioned it, there was nothing about the way in which he mentioned it, or the manner in which he spoke, that suggested he was upset, or angry, in any way, with losing his tree-cutting contract?

THE INTERPRETER: None to show that he was angry.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Raftery, I want to have the afternoon break.

MR RAFTERY: If I could just ask one, and then I will finish very soon, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: So, if that's the case, why did you think to presume he was, or might be, angry, and tell the police so?

THE INTERPRETER: I had already stated, sir, in a very long discussion that we had with the police, especially Fou, they mentioned the fact that Toi had been arrested.

MR RAFTERY: I know you've told us all that, but what I want to know is, if you didn't have any idea that he was upset or angry, why tell the police that you thought he was?

THE INTERPRETER: That discussion with the police was not a formal discussion, it was just a discussion while awaiting my lawyer.

MR RAFTERY: If I accept all that for the moment, it still doesn't answer the question, does it? Why tell them that he was angry, if you had no idea that he was?

THE INTERPRETER: I have already answered that same question ten, or more than ten, times, sir.

MR RAFTERY: The reason why you mentioned that to the police was that that was the reason why Toi was willing to go along with you in your plans to kill Luagalau, isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is a complete lie, sir.

HIS HONOUR: We will adjourn for the afternoon break now. You may step out of the witness-box, Leafa. Mr Courts Officer, would you please take charge of the assessors.

ASSESSORS RETIRED [3.14pm]

HIS HONOUR: Would you adjourn the Court for the afternoon break, please.

RESUMED [3.35pm]

ASSESSORS RETURNED [3.36pm]

HIS HONOUR: Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: You'll remember that, one of the things that Mr Toailoa did on your behalf, was assert, while Alatise was being cross-examined, that you were a God-fearing man who disapproved of violence; that's right, do you remember that?

THE INTERPRETER: I fear God, sir.

MR RAFTERY: You will remember that they said that from their perspective, that that was not your reputation?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, a person is entitled to his own opinion, that is his right, sir.

MR RAFTERY: But you see, if we take Molesi Taumaoe, for example, in his particular case, you actually threatened him himself, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: No, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And I'm not going to go into the details, because we discussed it when we were discussing Sa Ropeti's evidence about the gun, but you know what I'm talking about, or alleging anyway, don't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And you say, "No, all I did was swear at him", isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: What did you say to him when you swore at him?

THE INTERPRETER: Do you want me to actually say the Samoan swear words that I used?

MR RAFTERY: It would help?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, I said many bad - there were many bad words that I used, but I said words to the effect that that is why a person gets involved, sir, in printing false accusations, sir. There were a lot of swear words that were used, but out of deference to the Honourable Assessors, sir, I do not want to speak about them. But, if I must, then I'll say them, sir.

HIS HONOUR: I mention to Mr Epati and Mr Toailoa, I may need to seek some assistance from counsel on this one, if it is necessary.

MR RAFTERY: Did you use, in the Samoan you've just spoken, the word "lavea"?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And would that translate as "get involved" or "get hurt"?

THE INTERPRETER: What I meant by that, that is why someone would punch his mouth, if that was what he was doing.

MR RAFTERY: So is that what you were threatening to do to Taumaoe?

THE INTERPRETER: What is the meaning of "threatening" that you are referring to in that question?

MR RAFTERY: Well, did you threaten to punch his mouth?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I did.

MR RAFTERY: Why?

THE INTERPRETER: Because he printed some very false things in his newspaper, and that was not the first time.

MR RAFTERY: So you threatened to punch his mouth, you didn't threaten to blow his brains out; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment. "No, I didn't threaten to - - - "

MR RAFTERY: I was just going to follow that one up. I am sorry, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: You do, it is better coming from counsel.

MR RAFTERY: Certainly. When you say "no", do you mean, "No, I didn't threaten to blow his brains out"?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: Did you threaten to blow his brains out, or words to that effect?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: Why were you asking Sa Ropeti if Molesi was scared?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall a time that I did ask Sa Ropeti that question.

MR RAFTERY: Can you give us some of the swear words you actually used to Taumaoe, so we can just get a flavour of this meeting between you and he?

THE INTERPRETER: With due respect to the Honourable Assessors, I used a phrase to the effect that "those are anus behaviour and would cause a punch to the mouth."

MR RAFTERY: You also made similar threats to Sano Malifa, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: Have you ever been upset by anything that Sano Malifa has published in the Samoa Observer?

THE INTERPRETER: In Sano Malifa's newspapers, nearly in every issue, that an article defaming me is printed.

MR RAFTERY: Have you ever expressed a degree of upset about that to Sano Malifa?

THE INTERPRETER: I have never replied to any of the newspapers or the radio items. They have tried, but I have never answered any of them.

MR RAFTERY: Well, that is not quite right, is it, because you replied to the Samoa Post, didn't you, in the rather forceful way you have just described when you dealt with Molesi Taumaoe?

THE INTERPRETER: I did not threaten Molesi Taumaoe that I was going to blow his brains out. I only threatened him by using swear words, Samoan swear words, and that meeting lasted for about five minutes only. Sa Ropeti was not present, only a lady that was there.

MR RAFTERY: Did you express yourself in similar words to the ones you say you used to Molesi, to Sano Malifa?

THE INTERPRETER: I can't recall that, sir.

MR RAFTERY: In the case of Sano Malifa, you decided to take the matter further, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know the meaning of that question, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Let me explain. You approached a man, called Leitufia Ioane, didn't you, about Sano Malifa?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know anything of that thing, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Just so that I am making myself clear to you, this would be about seven years ago, or so?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know anything about that thing.

MR RAFTERY: And you tried to recruit him to kill Sano Malifa and Tuigamala Lam Sam, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: I know nothing about what you are referring to.

MR RAFTERY: And I suggest that you had several meetings with him, trying to recruit him, but that he refused. Isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Who are you referring to in that question?

MR RAFTERY: Leitufia Ioane?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know anything about that thing.

MR RAFTERY: You know who that person is, though, don't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: Do you remember Fatu Tielu?

THE INTERPRETER: I know him very well, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And he was the Deputy General Manager, Finance, of the EPC, wasn't he?

THE INTERPRETER: That was why I said I know him very well, because he was working under me in the EPC.

MR RAFTERY: And he disapproved of a particular payment that you wanted made, didn't he?

THE INTERPRETER: Well, I can explain the whole thing, if you want me to.

MR RAFTERY: Do I understand that you began by saying that was correct, but that you wanted to explain the whole thing?

THE INTERPRETER: Wrong.

MR RAFTERY: All right. But didn't you, when he crossed you over that particular payment, threaten to shoot him in the head?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, we went to Court on that issue, and it was thrown out by the Court, because Toluono and Folasa gave evidence on that case.

MR RAFTERY: But, after the Court case, you had a meeting with Fatu Tielu and Tofilau Eti Alesana, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: No meeting at all with the then Prime Minister?

THE INTERPRETER: We met before the Court case.

MR RAFTERY: I suggest you apologised to Fatu Tielu for saying those words to him, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: You also threatened to shoot Hinauri Petana, didn't you, when she crossed you over a particular payment you were seeking?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not understand the payment that you are referring to. I should know that so that I would be able to answer that question.

MR RAFTERY: It was a payment of about either 20 or 25,000 to Access Construction and she refused to sanction that payment, because there were improprieties about it, according to her; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: That is a lie, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Was there any dispute between you and her over this payment?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall anything. Nothing like that happened.

MR RAFTERY: You say you certainly never threatened to shoot her over anything like that?

THE INTERPRETER: Nothing like that happened, and I cannot recall anything like that ever happening.

MR RAFTERY: You remember the company Access Construction, though, don't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Very well, sir.

MR RAFTERY: That is your brother's company, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: Isn't he the major shareholder in it?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: Whose company do you say it is?

THE INTERPRETER: A company from Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: Where does your brother or where did your brother Joe live?

THE INTERPRETER: In Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: But he had nothing to do with this company; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: He works for the company.

MR RAFTERY: Just a mere employee; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know that about the company.

MR RAFTERY: Do you ever remember any dispute with this lady over a payment to that company?

THE INTERPRETER: The reason why I am saying that I cannot recall anything is because, when we talk about money, it will be the Financial Secretary that deals with the Minister.

MR RAFTERY: And Hinauri Petana worked at Treasury, didn't she?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And still does, doesn't she?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know that, since I have been held in custody by the police at Tafaigata.

MR RAFTERY: And Axis Construction did the roadwork that was being done under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Works, isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, and there was a reason.

MR RAFTERY: And, do you remember ever having had to have a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance about this payment to that Hawaiian company?

THE INTERPRETER: I can't recall anything, sir.

MR RAFTERY: No meeting you had to have about irregularities in relation to the paperwork and this payment?

THE INTERPRETER: I can't recall anything, unless a date is given when that meeting was held.

MR RAFTERY: Just give me one moment, I'll put a date to you.

THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, sir.

MR RAFTERY: I'm sorry, I can't put the exact date to you, but it was after May of 1991, but in that year.

THE INTERPRETER: My apologies, sir, but I cannot recall any that far, sir.

MR RAFTERY: So nothing that I have said has rung any bells with you, is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I have answered it, sir.

MR RAFTERY: What about Fiu Mataese Elisara, do you know him?

THE INTERPRETER: During what time, sir?

MR RAFTERY: Going back to the same period that we've just been talking about, 1991, he was the Director of the Department of Lands and Survey, do you remember?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall that thing, whatever that thing was.

MR RAFTERY: But you remember the man Fiu Mataese, yes?

THE INTERPRETER: I can recall the name, sir, but not the face, sir. It's been a while, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And you wouldn't have a clue what he does now, is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I know nothing, sir.

MR RAFTERY: You had a dispute with him concerning irregularities in relation to the construction of the seawall at Vaiala Beach. Do you remember that?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall a thing, but, if you give me a few explanations, sir, I'll probably recall and give a statement on it.

MR RAFTERY: You remember that the Public Works Department were constructing a seawall at Vaiala Beach?

THE INTERPRETER: I can recall the building of that seawall, but what I am not definite about is whether it was built by Public Works or a private company.

MR RAFTERY: And do you remember that Fiu Mataese wrote a report about that, making complaints in relation to the environmental impact? And I will just give you a little bit more detail. And that he complained in that report about the fact that you have not sought the permission of the Minister of Lands for the work that you were doing?

THE INTERPRETER: Do you want me to answer your question?

MR RAFTERY: Well, is that ringing any bells with you now?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: And you were furious with him about that report, weren't you, and you rang him up to complain about it?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall ringing him about that, but I can recall that work and the beginning of that work, and the aim of that work was to protect the environment.

MR RAFTERY: And in the course of that telephone call - see if this helps ring any bells to you - you said words to this effect: "Do you know who I am? Do you know anything about my background? Do you know that I've been a member of the Mafia?" And you ended by saying - I'll just finish the conversation - words to this effect, "That if you did know anything about my background, you wouldn't persist in what you're doing."

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, that is a complete lie, sir. That statement is a complete lie and nothing like that happened, sir, concerning that work. That work was done because of the Prime Minister, sir, and I can give an explanation, sir, of that whole work.

MR RAFTERY: Was there any dispute about your doing that work without permission?

THE INTERPRETER: I was permitted to do that work, sir. No work could be carried out without that permission.

MR RAFTERY: I'm not worried about what eventually happened and about irregularities being sorted out, but, at the beginning, when you started doing that work, you hadn't had permission, had you?

THE INTERPRETER: There was permission for that work, sir.

MR RAFTERY: You say right from the outset, do you?

THE INTERPRETER: From the beginning, sir.

MR RAFTERY: And there was never any dispute or difficulty between you and the Department of Lands about it?

THE INTERPRETER: None at all that I can recall. No dispute occurred, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Never any report adverse to you from Fiu Mataese?

THE INTERPRETER: I have already stated, if I could see that report it would probably remind me. But, from recollection, that work continued without dispute.

MR RAFTERY: Just give me a moment and I will see if I have got the Samoan. Just while the original is being sought, do you ever remember receiving a letter yourself from Fiu Mataese?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall receiving the letter.

MR RAFTERY: Written to you following your telephone call to him, on the same day that you spoke to him on the telephone.

THE INTERPRETER: Is that letter copied to the Minister? Is that a letter to the Director from the Director?

MR RAFTERY: It is directed to you, personally, Leafa Vitale as Minister of Works.

THE INTERPRETER: Any copy to the Minister of Lands and Environment?

MR RAFTERY: What I have here is - if I can just hand this to you, it is a letter dated 5 July 1991. Do you see it is addressed to you as Minister of Works?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes .....

MR RAFTERY: Sorry. It is signed at the end by Fiu Mataese as Director of Lands and Survey.

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know if this is Fiu Mataese's signature. All I can see is that someone has signed the letter.

MR RAFTERY: The name there underneath it is Fiu Mataese, isn't it?

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

MR RAFTERY: It is headed, "Regarding your telephone call to me today at 12.45"; isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I can see that.

MR RAFTERY: Well, now, just read it through to yourself, don't read it out loud, and I will ask you some questions.

THE INTERPRETER: Starting from where?

MR RAFTERY: The beginning.

THE INTERPRETER: It's a long letter, but can you give me the part that you wish to refer me to in that letter?

MR RAFTERY: The lot.

THE INTERPRETER: And do you want me to read the whole letter until it's finished?

MR RAFTERY: Read the whole letter until it's finished, to yourself.

HIS HONOUR: Just to yourself.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Raftery?

MR RAFTERY: Now that you've had the opportunity to read that, does that help jog your memory about the telephone call with him that particular day on which that letter was written?

THE INTERPRETER: I can now recall it.

MR RAFTERY: Right. In that telephone call to him, you were very threatening to him, weren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Where in that letter is that reference made?

MR RAFTERY: Well, for example, look at the first phrase under the section headed "2. Your version concerning your past." Have you got that section there?

THE INTERPRETER: Can you show me, please?

MR RAFTERY: If you can just hand the letter back and I'll find the passage for you. Just to make sure that my English translation is correct, what does it say in the Samoan under the number 2?

THE INTERPRETER: I'll read it, sir.

MR RAFTERY: Yes, just the heading.

THE INTERPRETER:

Your statement concerning your past.

MR RAFTERY: And doesn't the letter talk about, in the first sentence under that:

Your threatening remarks made to me where you questioned me if I understood you and your background.

THE INTERPRETER: I'll read if you want me to.

MR RAFTERY: No, just read that first sentence to yourself there.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I have done it.

MR RAFTERY: Do you agree that he was referring there to the conversation you had with him at 12.45 that day where you made threatening remarks to him concerning you and your background?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, that is not correct, because I have not found in his letter a reference to that I was a member of the Mafia from Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: No, that doesn't appear in the letter; I'll come to that in a minute. But do you agree that that first sentence reads - well, no, maybe I'd better do it this way: you read out, in Samoan, that first sentence under that heading number 2.

THE INTERPRETER:

Your threatening remarks made to me where you questioned me if I understood you and your background.

MR RAFTERY: Now, do you agree that you made a telephone call to him that day?

THE INTERPRETER: I can now recall I did telephone him.

MR RAFTERY: You made threatening remarks to him during that, didn't you, concerning you and your background?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot find in here a reference that I was in the Mafia in Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: Forget that. Do you agree you made threatening remarks to him about you and your background?

THE INTERPRETER: I can recall that we did talk with Fiu Mataese, but you have just told me that I said that I was in the Mafia in Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: Let me try again. Do you agree, in the course of that conversation with Fiu Mataese, you made threatening remarks to him about you and your background?

THE INTERPRETER: No.

MR RAFTERY: How many pages is that letter there in front of you?

THE INTERPRETER: Five.

MR RAFTERY: Do you accept that the letter says, in the line I have just read out or got you to read out, that it is complaining about your threatening remarks to him made that very day; is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Well, I am not aware of the threatening that is referred to because I have just been recently accused of being a Mafia in Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: If you go to the, I think it is the last page of the letter and it may be the last but one in your copy, where there is a heading saying "Other Matters"?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I can see that.

MR RAFTERY: Does the first couple of sentences read, "I will not mention other matters of our conversation, God knows everything"?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR RAFTERY: What I am putting to you, those "other matters" of the conversation were, which he didn't choose to mention in this letter, but which I am putting to you, are that you, among your threatening remarks, told him that you had a Mafia background, didn't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Very wrong.

MR RAFTERY: You told him that if he was - words to this effect - "that if he had any sense, he would stop persisting in these criticisms of you, if he had any appreciation for the sort of person you were."

THE INTERPRETER: Well, I do not know about your interpretation of that, sir, in connection with what you are pushing against me.

MR RAFTERY: What do you say happened in that telephone conversation with Fiu Mataese that led him to write to you a five-page letter of complaint immediately after it?

THE INTERPRETER: The five-page letter, sir, is an apology from Fiu Mataese, sir, apologising for a letter that was prepared by a palagi and signed by Fiu Mataese.

MR RAFTERY: But he also - he apologised if he'd upset you, but set out the reasons for why he did what he did, didn't he, and complained about your threatening remarks to him, isn't that right?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, what is utmost in my mind is that the - of the statement that I have been accused of, that I was a Mafia in Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: What do you say you said to him to make him think that you'd been threatening him?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know of words that I had used that he would term "threatening".

MR RAFTERY: But would you agree now that you must have said something to upset him?

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, that was why I wanted to see this letter, because of the statement that was given at the beginning, that I was a Mafia in Hawaii.

MR RAFTERY: I will ask the question again. Do you agree you must have said something to upset him in the course of that conversation?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know of any statement that I had made to make him angry.

MR RAFTERY: And there was nothing, I take it, that you ever said in that conversation to make him describe your remarks as threatening, is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I cannot recall anything, sir. It's been 10 years since that.

MR RAFTERY: But you would say you never ever once threatened Fiu Mataese, is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not know of any statement that I have said that was threatening to Fiu Mataese.

MR RAFTERY: Apart from Molesi Taumaoe, would you accept that you'd threatened other people, or not?

THE INTERPRETER: I would like to know those other people, sir.

MR RAFTERY: I'm just asking you: leaving aside Molesi Taumaoe, have you ever threatened anybody else, ever, in your life?

THE INTERPRETER: I would like to know the people that I have threatened.

MR RAFTERY: I will try again; last time: have you ever, in your life, threatened anybody, apart from Molesi Taumaoe?

THE INTERPRETER: In what case? By saying that "I would nearly come and punch you", or what threatening remarks are you saying?

THE INTERPRETER: Any sort of - - - 

THE INTERPRETER: Sir, that is the only threatening that I could recall. The Samoan way of threatening, sir - it's like you telling your children that "I would nearly come and kick you", when, in fact, you do not mean it.

MR RAFTERY: So, this incident with Molesi Taumaoe was one single, isolated blemish in an otherwise virtuous life. Is that right?

THE INTERPRETER: I do not understand what you mean by that.

MR RAFTERY: Never mind.

HIS HONOUR: You will have to come back to it tomorrow, if you want to press on, Mr Raftery.

MR RAFTERY: I will, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I am going to adjourn now.

I remind you, Leafa Vitale, not to discuss your evidence with anybody whilst you remain a witness. You may step out of the witness-box.

THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, sir.

HIS HONOUR: Gentlemen assessors, I remind you not to discuss the evidence or developments in this trial with anybody else. Shortly, you will be leaving this courtroom, to return at 9.30 tomorrow morning.

Mr Courts Officer, would you please take charge of the assessors. Mr Registrar, would you adjourn the Court, please, until 9.30 tomorrow morning.