Elder v State [2012] FJCA 97; AAU0087.2011 (30 November 2012)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
[ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT]

Criminal Appeal No.AAU 0087 of 2011
[High Court No. HAC 016/2011]

BETWEEN:

FRANK JOSEPH ELDER
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Before the Hon. Justice Eric Basnayake

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Mr M Korovou for the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 25 October, 2012
Date of Ruling: 30 November, 2012

RULING

[1] This is an appeal filed by the accused appellant (accused) againt the conviction dated, 14 July, 2011. The accused was indicted in the High Court at Labasa under Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) of the Crimes Decree 2009 for having carnal knowledge of Losalini Senibulu without her consent. The victim in this case is the step daughter of the accused a student, 17 years of age. After trial by a Judge sitting with three Assessors the accused was convicted. The accused was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with a non parole period of 10 years.

[2] The accused filed this appeal by a letter which was received by the Magistrate's Court, Labasa on the 12th of August 2011. The accused gives the following reasons for the consideration of this Court.

• The accused refers to some letters written by his wife, daughter and step-daughter (victim) describing the incident. The accused states that what is stated in those letters is different to what is recorded at the police station.
  
• The accused states that the family members were forced to sign at the police station.
  
• The accused states that the victim never made a complaint to the police.
  
• The accused states that his daughter had told his wife after the trial that a police officer together with an officer from DPP's office had met her in school and told her that she could not change her story in court.
  
• The accused complained that the letters of his family members were not produced in court by his counsel who appeared from the Legal Aid Commission.
  

[3] When this application was heard in court, the accused appearing in person said that he has stated everything in his appeal. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that as there are mis-directions or non directions disclosed in the appeal, leave should be refused.

[4] I do not see any arguable points disclosed in the appeal filed by the accused. The accused has referred to some letters written by his wife and the daughers who gave evidence in court. None of these letters were produced at the trial. I am of the view that the matters mentioned in this appeal do not raise any arguable points. Hence I consider that this is a frivolous appeal. Therefore leave is refused.

[5] Orders of Court are:

1. Leave to appeal refused.
2. Appeal dismissed.

...............................
Eric L. Basnayake
JUSTICE OF APPEAL