
The Supreme Court has dismissed a charge against a Santo father accused of failing to provide the necessities of life to his two-year-old daughter.
Justice Maree MacKenzie found there was no case to answer against Abet Les, who was charged under section 104(2) of the Penal Code with failing to provide the necessities of life to his daughter, referred to in the judgment as FL.
The case, Public Prosecutor v Les [2026] VUSC 250, was heard on July 15 and 16, 2026, with the Court delivering its reasons on September 11, 2026.
The prosecution alleged that between November 1 and 15, 2023, at Flat Bodmas Area in Santo, Les negligently failed to provide the necessities of life to his daughter, thereby endangering her life.
The Court heard that FL had previously been living with her maternal aunt and her husband, who had adopted her. In 2023, she returned to the care of her parents for about four months before being taken back into the care of her maternal family.
Evidence before the Court was that when FL arrived at her maternal grandparents’ home in November 2023, she was unwell. Her grandparents treated her at home and later informed her aunt of her condition.
The Court also heard that FL was examined by a doctor in March 2024.
The medical evidence did not, however, establish that she had a condition requiring medical treatment during the period covered by the charge.
Justice MacKenzie found the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to establish key elements of the offence.
The prosecution argued that Les had failed to obtain medical treatment for his daughter.
However, when questioned by the Court, the prosecutor acknowledged there was a gap in the evidence as to whether Les knew that FL had a medical condition requiring treatment.
The Court found there was no expert medical evidence establishing that FL had a health condition requiring medical treatment at the relevant time.
Justice MacKenzie also found that the grandparents’ descriptions of the child’s condition were observations rather than qualified medical opinions.
The Court further considered the fact that the grandparents did not seek medical treatment when they first became concerned about her condition.
The Court found there was also no evidence establishing that Les knew of the condition alleged in the prosecution case or that he knew his daughter required medical treatment at the relevant time.
The Court further considered whether the prosecution had established that FL’s life was endangered by any failure to obtain medical treatment.
Justice MacKenzie found there was no evidence establishing a reasonable possibility that the child would die as a result of any failure to seek medical attention.
Under section 104(2) of the Penal Code, a person responsible for someone unable to provide the necessities of life for themselves can be criminally liable if they negligently fail to provide those necessities and the person’s life is endangered or their health is permanently injured.
The Court identified four elements the prosecution needed to establish, including that Les was in charge of FL, that she was unable to provide the necessities of life for herself, that he negligently failed to provide those necessities, and that his omission endangered her life.
Justice MacKenzie found the prosecution had established that Les was in charge of FL and that, because of her age, she was dependent on adults for the necessities of life.
However, the Court found the prosecution had failed to establish the remaining necessary elements concerning negligence and endangerment of life.
Justice MacKenzie therefore concluded there was no case to answer and dismissed the charge.
SOURCE: VANUATU DAILY POST
