Radrokai v State [2006] FJCA 89; AAU78D.2005 (27 June 2006)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIJI ISLANDS
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. AAU 78 of 2005
(High Court Criminal Appeal No. HAA 98/05S)

BETWEEN:

SEREVI RADROKAI
Appellant

AND

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel:
Appellant in Person
D. Gounder for the Respondent

DECISION

[1]. On 22 April 2004 the Appellant was convicted in the Lautoka Magistrates’ Court on one count of receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment.

[2]. On 1 September 2005 the High Court at Lautoka dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence.

[3]. This is a second appeal lodged pursuant to the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Court of Appeal Act. Appeals under that provision only lie where a question of law is raised.

[4]. The full details of the trial in the Magistrates’ Court are contained in the record and the grounds upon which the appeal was dismissed in the High Court are set out in the judgment of that court.

[5]. In addition to reading the record and the judgment I have also read and considered three letters of appeal sent to the court and to the Chief Justice. I also have heard the Appellant.

[6]. In my opinion, the two central question before the Magistrate were, first, whether he believed the second prosecution witness whose evidence was that the Appellant brought the stolen goods to him on the evening that they were stolen and second, whether, applying the doctrine of recent possession, he was justified in finding it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had received the stolen goods.

[7]. The Appellant’s central complaint appears to be that although charged with burglary and larceny, he was convicted on a count of receiving. Since that count was in the alternative to the two counts upon which he was acquitted, the Appellant has no cause for complaint.

[8]. A group of other complaints, alleging various breaches of natural justice, was carefully considered by the High Court and found to be without foundation.

[9]. In my opinion, the Appellant has not shown any error of law, either in the process of his conviction or in his sentencing. In these circumstances I am satisfied that no appeal lies. The appeal is summarily dismissed under the provisions of Section 35 (2) of the Court of Appeal Act.

M.D. Scott
Resident Justice of Appeal

27 June 2006