Tamani v The State [1994] FJHC 119; Haa0031j.94s (16 September 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(SUVA)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0031 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

SIKELI TAMANI
APPELLANT

-v-

STATE
RESPONDENT

Appellant in Person
Mr. Hook for Respondent

JUDGEMENT

This appellant was convicted on 24 January, 1994, on a charge of Robbery with Violence contrary to Section 293 (1) (b) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17 and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

When he lodged his appeal, it was against both conviction and sentence, however at the hearing of his appeal he abandoned his appeal against sentence and now appeals against conviction only.

The facts of the case are these.

"On 29 December, 1993 between 1pm and 2pm Anju Lata, the Financial Controller at Sunshine Bakery at Nakasi was in her office, when a man who had his face covered with a piece of cloth came in and asked her what time they were closing. She told him that they were about to close. The man asked her if she had any money but she remained silent. The man then ordered her to move away. She then ran away as she saw the man was armed with an iron rod and holding a bag in his hand. As she ran out of the office she saw another man outside with a knife. The person with the iron rod took all the money from the drawer of Anju Lata's table before they ran away. As they ran away the straw hat which the man with the iron rod was wearing fell off. They boarded the carrier which was waiting for them and drove off. The total cash stolen was $1,000. As they drove away Sanjay Kumar, the van driver for Sunshine Bakery, gave chase and caught up with them somewhere in Naulu. Both men ran away except the carrier driver. The matter was then reported to the Police."

The appellant filed several grounds of appeal which could be summarised as follows:-

(a) That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in holding that the confession allegedly made by the appellant to the Police was made voluntarily.

(b) That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in convicting the appellant against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial.

At the hearing of this appeal appellant did not help this Court much as he complained mainly of the fact that he was not granted bail in the Court below and also that he was denied legal aid, which really have very little to do with his grounds of appeal, if at all.

As for the first ground the record of the proceedings in the Court below does not reveal any evidence of confession by the appellant adduced by the prosecution at all. The evidence of Detective Constable Eroni Soqo reveals that only the second Accused made a confession to him but not the appellant. In fact at the trial the second accused Atunaisa Bulewa again admitted that he was guilty of the offence. This ground is totally baseless and is therefore dismissed.

As for ground (b) the trial Magistrate in his judgment stated that he was satisfied the Prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Samuela Kubunavanua PW3 in his evidence at the trial said that on the day in question he was operating his van Reg.No.CO212 at Makoi Stand when a man came and hired his van to take him to Wainibuku. At Wainibuku two other men boarded his van. They asked him to drive them to Nakasi where they stole money from Sunshine Bakery and then told him to drive them to Naulu where they got off and ran away. Samuela said he recognised both accused persons and was able to identify the appellant to the Police later at Wainibuku. Samuela also identified both the appellant and the other accused at the trial. He also said that the appellant was wearing a hat on the day in question. He later identified the hat when shown by the Police as the one which the appellant was wearing. The totality of the evidence of the four prosecution witnesses points to the guilt of the appellant. On the other hand the appellant gave an unsworn statement merely denying taking part in the robbery and called no witness.

The trial Magistrate who is very experienced was in a better position to observe the demeanour of all witnesses before pronouncing his judgment. Even though only Samuela Kubunavanua could identify the appellant the Magistrate was clearly satisfied with his evidence.

"The general rule on corroboration is that at common law, one witness is sufficient in all cases (with the exception of perjury) at the trial". (See para 16-1 of Archibold Vol.1, 1993 Edition).

I cannot fault the finding of the learned Magistrate on the evidence before him.
This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed and the appeal against conviction is accordingly dismissed.

As the appeal against sentence was abandoned at the hearing, and that the Prosecution did not wish to cross appeal against sentence, and although I find that the sentence of 2 years is a little lenient I will let it remain undisturbed.

S W Kepa
JUDGE

16th September, 1994

HAA0031J.94S