State v Raitini [2003] FJHC 149; HAC0005J.2003S (22 October 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. HAC005 OF 2003S

THE STATE

V

TIERI RAITINI and 2 Others

Gates J.

Mr S. Leweniqila and Mr W. Rano for the State
Mr R. Singh for Accused 1
Accused 2 in Person

JUDGMENT

[1] The three assessors have given their unanimous opinions that each of the Accused is not guilty of the charge of robbery.

[2] The analysis of the evidence in this case however was not easy. I adopt the directions that I gave in the summing up. I find that Jennifer Chen was a truthful and accurate witness, as also were Ms Yan and Mr Huai. I accept that Ms Huai was pulled out of the restaurant by her wrists, that she and Mr Ming were then put into the police vehicle by the 2 Accused, and that they were detained in that vehicle as it went through various city streets before arriving at Drew Street. I find that the Accused took the 2 Chinese to Drew Street because it was a dark and concealed place. A proper search should have been conducted at the police station not in such a place. I find there was no intention by these two Accused to carry out an investigation into their passports. Ms Huai and Mr Ming were taken there in order that money might be extracted from them, and this is what indeed happened to Ms Huai. Ms Huai had $100 taken from her for which both of these Accused acting together were responsible.

[3] Ms Huai was improperly searched as was Mr Ming. Both Accused admitted in their interviews carrying out these 2 searches. There is no doubt as to their identity and involvement in this case. I find Accused 1 and 2 were acting together in what they did. There was no proper police basis for taking these 2 Chinese to the Cumming Street Police Post.

[4] The involvement of the Accused with the 2 Chinese was not for an official or genuine investigation.

[5] I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that by pulling Ms Huai out of the restaurant and by detaining her with Mr Ming these 2 Accused had put them in fear, prior to the Accused committing the theft of the money. The searches were unlawful and involuntary. I accept Ms Huai’s account of the theft of the $100 which amounts in law to robbery.

[6] I therefore find each Accused guilty as charged in the information of the offence of robbery and I convict them.

A.H.C.T. GATES
JUDGE

Solicitors for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Solicitors for Accused 1: Messrs Kohli & Singh
Accused 2: In Person