State v Koroilagilagi [1994] FJHC 65; Hac0026d.1990s (22 June 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC0026 OF 1990

STATE

-v-

KITIONE KOROILAGILAGI
TIMOCI GAUNAVINAKA

CHARGE: Counts 1 to 3- Larceny By Servant: Contrary to Section 274(a)(1)
of the Penal Code Cap.17.
Counts 4 to 9- Obtaining Money By False Pretences: Contrary to Section 309(a)
of the Penal Code, Cap.17.
Count 10- Fraudulent Falsification of Accounts: Contrary to Section 307(a)
of the Penal Code, Cap.17.

Ms Rice for the State
Accused in person

RULING

The Accused person is disputing the initials on MFI.3A & 4B and the first portion of signature on MFI.4. Before these documents could be put to the attention of the Assessors, this Court will have to make a ruling, whether they should be admitted or not, and, if admitted it will be highly prejudicial to the case of the defence. On the other hand the prosecution submitted that such documents should be admitted as their probative value is more important than its prejudicial value.

In R v O'Sullivan (1969) 53 Cr. App.R. 274 certain disputed documents were put before the jury as part of the probative material of the case.

In the case R v Sang AER. 1979, Vol. 2 page 1231 Lord Diplock said:

1. A trial judge is a criminal trial has always a discretion to refuse to admit evidence if in his opinion its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
   
2. Save with regard to admissions and confessions and generally with regard to evidence obtained from the accused, after commission of the offence, he has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The court is not concerned with how it was obtained. It is no ground for the exercise of discretion to exclude that the evidence was obtained as the result of the activities of an agent provocateur.
   

In the present case I find that the probative value of the evidence sought to be admitted by the Prosecution far outweighs its prejudicial effect. I therefore find that the three documents in dispute admissible, and I so rule.

S W Kepa
JUDGE

22nd June, 1994

HAC0026D.90S