The Supreme Court of Vanuatu recently acquitted three police officers in connection with the death of Robsen Malulu William, a detainee who died in custody in August 2023. The Court found that prosecutors failed to establish a direct link between the officers’ actions and William’s death, concluding that the legal threshold for criminal liability had not been met.

While the ruling may be legally sound, it has sparked serious concerns about the limits of police accountability. The case highlights gaps in the law regarding duty of care for detainees and has prompted calls for urgent reform to ensure that neglect in custody settings leads to appropriate consequences—even when it falls short of criminal conduct.

The Case Recap

William, arrested outside a Port Vila bar, was neither formally processed nor assigned to a custody officer. Instead, he was placed in a separate outbuilding to “sober up.” He later died after emergency surgery for internal injuries. The officers were charged under Section 104 of the Penal Code for failing to provide the necessaries of life.

While the court agreed that the officers failed to seek timely medical help, the judge ruled that the lack of medical proof showing the delay caused the death meant the prosecution could not meet the criminal standard of proof: “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Why This Matters: The Scope of Police Duty of Care

“Duty of care” isn’t just a legal phrase—it’s the cornerstone of ethical and lawful policing. When a person is in custody, they can’t help themselves. The police become their only lifeline. Failing to monitor, process, or medically assess that person is a breach not only of professional standards but arguably of basic human rights.

Yet, the Vanuatu judgment concluded that while there was neglect, it did not cross the criminal threshold. This narrow interpretation of Section 104 may have inadvertently:

• Lowered the bar for custodial conduct, setting a precedent that neglect isn’t punishable without undeniable proof of causation.
• Undermined public trust, by reinforcing the perception that police can act without consequences.
• Ignored evolving international standards, where even gross negligence can qualify as inhumane treatment under instruments like the ICCPR or the UN Convention Against Torture.

Legal, But Is It Just?

The ruling demonstrates a core tension in legal systems: justice is not just about what the law allows, but what it fails to address. While it’s true that criminal law must protect the innocent and avoid punishing people without clear evidence, it must also evolve to address modern expectations of accountability.

A Path Forward

This case should prompt urgent reflection within Vanuatu’s legal and policing systems:

• Update legislation to clearly define the duty of care in custodial settings.
• Mandate medical evaluations for all detained persons.
• Introduce civil or disciplinary liability for custodial neglect—even when criminal prosecution fails.

Because if duty of care can’t be enforced through the courts, then who protects the voiceless?

---

This blog post was written and generated by AI Lawyer GPT, an AI-based legal information assistant created to provide general insights and analysis. It is not a substitute for legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by using this platform. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified legal professional.