State v Sani [2004] FJHC 60; HAC0013D.2003 (9 February 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0013 OF 2003S

STATE

v.

SURESH SANI; and
DEO RAJ

Hearing: 19th January 2004 – 6th February 2004
Ruling: 9th February 2004

Counsel: Mr. W. Kuruisaqila for State
Ms J. Nair and Ms S. Vaniqi for 1st Accused
Mr. R. Chand and Mr. Qereqeretabua for 2nd Accused

RULING ON TRIAL WITHIN A TRIAL

Counsel for both accused object to the admission of caution and charge statements made to the police in the course of the investigation in this case. A trial within a trial has been held to determine admissibility.

Both accused persons have similar objections. They are that the interviews were obtained by assault, oppression, inducements and torture. It is also alleged that neither accused person was told of his right to counsel nor given an opportunity to see family members.

The principles relevant to the admissibility of interviews made to the police, are that they must be shown by the prosecution to have been obtained voluntarily and without oppression. The prosecution must also prove that there were no breaches of those Constitutional rights which persons in police custody are entitled to, and that if there are such breaches, the accused were not thereby prejudiced. In considering the admissibility of statements taken in breach of constitutional rights, the courts must balance those rights, with the interests of the public in relation to the investigation and prosecution of crimes. In all matters, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the confessions should be admitted in evidence.

The prosecution evidence

The prosecution called the two interviewing officers Cpl. Anirudh Kumar and Cpl. Ami Chand to tender the interview records. The witnessing officers, IP Sharendra Shyam and PC Rakesh Mani were also called.

Their evidence was that the 1st accused, Suresh Sani was arrested on suspicion of murder, at his house in Vuci, Nausori at about 7.30pm on the 21st of June 2002. The interview commenced at 9.30pm on the same day, at the Nausori Police Station Crime Office. It was conducted in Hindi by Cpl. Ami Chand and witnessed by IP Shyam. He was advised of his right to see counsel, legal advisor, social worker or any member of his family. He waived these rights. He then told the police that from about 7pm on the 31st of December 1999 to 3am on the 1st of January 2000 he had been at the house of one Jai Govind at Lakena with his wife and children. That was the time the police suspected the deceased had been killed.

The interview was suspended at 1am on the 22nd of June. The 1st accused was kept in the charge room until 10.30am the next day. The interview recommenced. The 1st accused then told the police a different version of what occurred. He said that Jagat Narayan (his employer), Manoj Deo Raj (the 2nd accused), Jiten and he, had together planned to kill Ashok Kumar in order to benefit from his life insurance policy. He said that on 31st December 1999 they all (except for Jagat Narayan) were in the 2nd accused’s taxi with Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar was given gin. They drove to the Koronivia Road. Manoj opened a car door causing Ashok Kumar to fall out onto the road. The 2nd accused then drove his taxi over Ashok Kumar, drove back to Nausori town where the 1st accused was dropped at the Mobil Service Station.

The interview was then suspended, at 12.30pm, for lunch. It resumed at 8.10pm when the 1st accused gave yet another version of the events of that night. This time he said that at 5.30pm on the 31st of December 1999, he picked up the 2nd accused from the house of Jai Govind in the van CX457, which belonged to Jagat Narayan. They went to Nausori town and picked up Ashok Kumar at the Mobil Service Station. He had a bottle of gin with him, and they bought some roast chicken at a restaurant. They then went to Bau Road and drank gin, after buying more gin at the shop of Indar Jeet. By 12 midnight Ashok Kumar had fallen asleep, leaning on a door in the car. The 1st accused drove to Koronivia Road and stopped near a culvert. The 2nd accused opened the door and Ashok Kumar fell out. The 2nd accused then pulled Ashok Kumar until he lay in front of the rear left tyre. He got back into the van and the 1st accused drove over Ashok Kumar. The motive given was that the 1st accused was the sole beneficiary of Ashok Kumar’s insurance policy.

The interview was then suspended at 9pm. It resumed at 11.20am on the 23rd of June, for reconstruction of the scene. The party returned to the Police Station at 12.05pm. The interview resumed, the interviewing officer questioning him about the details of the alleged murder. At 1pm the interview was suspended for lunch. It resumed at 2.15pm. The questioning was then about the insurance policy and a false passport the 1st accused said he had had made in the name of Prem Chand in order to flee the country. At 5.30pm the interview was suspended for a rest and dinner. It recommenced at 4.20pm on the 24th of June. He was then shown a number of documents in relation to the false passport and the registration of the business Zier Motor Part Dealers. The interview was suspended for dinner at 6.30pm and resumed at 7.40pm. After further questions about the Zier Company, its bank records and the insurance policy, the interview was suspended at 11pm for a rest. It resumed at 1.05pm the next day (25.6.02) and after a few more questions about the insurance policy it concluded at 2.15pm.

From the 21st of June 2002 to the 25th of June 2002 the 1st accused was in custody. On the nights of the 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th of June, he slept in the police cell. The station diary shows that clothes were brought in for him by his wife and that other visitors also came to see him.

The prosecution led evidence that the police, on the 24th of June 2002, applied for a court order to extend the time the accused were held in police custody. The application was made to the Nausori Magistrates’ Court, under section 27(3)(b) of the Constitution. The application was granted. The Order tendered does not indicate how long the extension was for, but the accused were brought to court the next day, on the 25th of June 2002.

In respect of the 2nd accused, he was brought to the police station on the 22nd of June 2002, at 3.45pm by DC Rakesh Mani. He was interviewed under caution by PC 1530 Anirudra Kumar. The interview was witnessed by DC Rakesh Mani.

According to the record of interview, he was told of his right to counsel, a legal adviser, a social worker or a member of his family. He waived these rights. He was then cautioned. He began by telling the police that on the night of 31/12/99 he, Ashok Kumar and the 1st accused went to the 1st accused’s house to drink gin. The 1st accused then dropped the 2nd accused near the Nausori Police Station and drove off. The 2nd accused went to the Dee Cees garage (where he was employed as a bus driver) and drove to the Stadium. He then drove a bus to Nadera, then went back to the garage. He went to his home at Caubati at 11.30pm, and went to sleep.

The interview was suspended at 10pm, and continued the next day at 11.30am. Overnight, he was locked up in the cell.

On the 23rd of June, the 2nd accused told a different story. This time he said that after drinking gin, at the 1st accused’s house, they left in a blue van which belonged to Jagat and drove towards Sawani. The 1st accused parked the van at a Chinese shop at Davuilevu and gave more gin to Ashok. They together made Ashok sit in the middle. Ashok was asleep and snoring. The 1st accused told the 2nd accused that he wanted to kill Ashok. The 2nd accused told the police that this came as no surprise to him, because the murder had been planned a week earlier. They decided to go to the Koronivia Road. The interview was suspended at 1.35pm for lunch, and resumed at 3pm.

The 2nd accused then explained to the police how they made Ashok lie down on the grass verge, and how the 1st accused drove the van over him.

At 5.10pm the interview was suspended for reconstruction of the scene. It resumed at 6pm. Cpl. Anirudra then asked in some detail how the murder was committed and the circumstances of the taking out of insurance policies. At 7.20pm the interview was suspended for a rest and meal. At 7.23pm, the Assistant Commissioner (Crime) and Assistant Commissioner (Professional Standards and Prosecutions) spoke to the 2nd accused and asked him how he was. The record reads as follows:

“Deo Raj told ACP(C) that he is OK. And telling all true things to Police, no use telling lies and he has no complaint against any one. Only he needs a blanket.”

At 7.27pm the two Assistant Commissioners left the Crime Office. The interview continued at 8.10pm. Question 69 and the answer read:

“Now I would like to question you in regards to one company?

A: No, brother why don’t you stop here as I really want to sleep.”

The interview was then suspended. It did not resume until 4.30pm on 24/6/02. He then gave further information about the creation of the Zeir Motor Second Hand Parts Company, its bank account and the insurance policy. The interview was suspended at 10pm. It resumed at 11.45am on 25/6/02 with some final questions. The interview was read over to him and he was invited to make any alterations he wished. It was concluded at 1.35pm on the same day.

At 2.20pm the 1st accused was charged by Cpl. Bhagwat. He made an inculpatory statement similar to his statement under caution. At 2.30pm the 2nd accused was charged by PC Pradip Kumar. He adopted the contents of his caution statement and said that he would say the rest in court.

Both accused were interviewed by a Justice of the Peace, Nand Singh. He gave evidence that he interviewed Deo Raj at 2.20pm, in the Crime Office, and Suresh Sani at 2.29pm. Each said that he had no complaints against police. The accused were taken to the Nausori Health Centre where they were examined by Dr. Edward Richards. He said that he could not recall if a police officer was present during the examination, but that he asked each accused if he had a complaint. He had been asked by the police to examine for signs of police assault. He said that both accused consented to the examination and signed in his presence. The 1st accused complained of backache. However, on examination of the back he found no injuries. He assumed that the cause of the backache was soft tissue injury. The 2nd accused made no complaint and no injury was noted. The examinations took place at 2.50pm (for the 2nd accused) and 3pm (for the 1st accused).

They were both taken to court on the 25th of June (the same day) at some time after 3pm. The charge was read and they were remanded in custody. They were advised by the Magistrate to apply for legal aid. However on the 8th of July 2002, when the case was first called, they had still not applied for legal aid. The prosecutor then approached the Human Rights Commission to assist them. On the 19th of July 2002, Mr. Singh appeared for the 2nd accused. The 1st accused remained unrepresented until the 13th of August 2002.

The defence evidence

Both accused gave sworn evidence. The 1st accused said that on the 21st of June 2002, IP Shyam and Cpl. Ami Chand visited his home at about 7.30pm. The 1st accused said that IP Shyam had advised him to have a false passport made, and had promised him a work visa to Australia and New Zealand. On the 21st of June 2002, they discussed this over a bowl of yaqona at the 1st accused’s home. He said that Cpl. Ami Chand stood outside during these discussions. At about 9pm, IP Shyam drove the 1st accused to the Police Station in his private vehicle, stopping on the way to pick up Cpl. Anirudhra.

At the Police Station in IP Shyam’s office the 1st accused spoke privately to IP Shyam. IP Shyam showed the 1st accused the passport of Prem Chand. The 1st accused saw there was no work visa stamped in it. When he queried this, IP Shyam told him he would be charged with obtaining a false passport, and then began to question him about the deceased’s insurance policy. The 1st accused refused to make a further statement. He accused IP Shyam of corruptly closing an investigation into the arson of Jagat Narayan’s garage. Jagat Narayan was the 1st accused’s employer. The 1st accused then said that IP Shyam slapped him, then called other police officers to further assault him.

His evidence thereafter was that he was assaulted severely on back, legs, and stomach by punches, and an iron rod about 3 feet in length and 1 inch in diameter. He said that he was assaulted by Cpl. Anirudh, and Cpl. Ami Chand and that Cpl. Anirudh poked needles beneath his fingernails. He alleges that the assault was almost continuous over the five days and that at night he was locked in a cell. During the five days, the police recorded false statements and beat him to get his agreement. He said that he was told of his right to counsel, to see family members and a Justice of the Peace, but then when he asked to see his wife, his request was refused. Cpl. Ami Chand then wrote out 8-10 pages of Hindi and forced the accused to sign it. The pages were never read back to him, nor did he read them. He continued to record what he said was a false statement and he was beaten again by officers Rakesh Mani, Nilesh and Rajesh. They told him to agree to the allegations and when they rubbed a chilly on his genitals, he agreed to whatever they said. He said that he had received some meals but that he chose not to eat. He said that at 7pm on the 22nd, he saw a prosecution witness, Jai Govind being assaulted. They were forcing him to say that the 1st accused had brought a blue van to his house.

He said that his wife was brought in and questioned by the police in his presence. He said he was taken to Koronivia at about 1.30pm on Tuesday to reconstruct the scene and on his return to the Station he was charged by Cpl. Bhagwat. He said that IP Shyam told Cpl. Bhagwat what to write and that he (the 1st accused) was told to sign.

He said that Mr. Nand Singh, the Justice of the Peace came to the Police Station and he had some conversation with him about drinking in a garage and he then said he would tell his story in court. He said the police officers and the J.P. were rushing, and that Constable Nilesh was standing near the door. He was then taken to the Nausori Health Centre with the 2nd accused. There, he said he had no conversation with the doctor and that Constable Nilesh told the doctor what to write in the report.

They were taken to the courthouse at Valelevu and remanded for 14 days. He said that no visitor was allowed to see him in all of the time in custody, that he never received any clean clothes, that he never showered, that he was not given all his meals and that he was not given a blanket in the cell until Monday night, when on request, IP Shyam gave him one.

He called his wife, Sushila Wati as a witness. She supported his evidence as to the visit of IP Shyam to their house on the 21st of June, and said she made numerous attempts to see her husband, but only saw him once, on Sunday the 23rd, when she was questioned by the police about the events of the 31st of December 1999. She said she saw Deo Raj, the 2nd accused with a swollen face and saw Constable Rakesh slap him on the face. She was not allowed to see the 1st accused again.

The 2nd accused also gave sworn evidence. He called three witnesses, Maya Wati Raj (his wife), Nilesh Raj (his son) and Jai Govind a relative. The 2nd accused said that he had been requested by Cpl. Anirudh to go to the Station on Saturday 22nd June 2002. He was asked to make a statement. He demurred, saying he had already made two previous statements. There was then a “verbal” interrogation about the Zeir Second Hand Parts Company and the insurance policies followed by an assault by Cpl. Anirudh on his stomach. The 2nd accused said that the punches landed on a surgical scar from a kidney operation 3-4 years ago. Cpl. Anirudh then began to record a false statement. The record reads: “Then Anirudh started writing false statement. Rakesh and Rajesh were also there ... He took my statement. Sometimes he only spoke and did not write. Then he wrote 4-5 sentences, then asked me the next question.”

The 2nd accused said he was not read any of his rights. At 5.30pm he and the 1st accused were assaulted by 4-5 police officers, as they lay on the floor side by side. They were assaulted by an iron bar all over their bodies and on the soles of their feet. The assault continued for two hours. Then Jai Govind was brought in when the two accused were still lying on the floor. Jai Govind was also assaulted in front of them. They assaulted him because Jai Govind told them that the 1st accused had come in a yellow van. During this assault the two accused remained in the room.

The rest of his evidence was that he was continuously assaulted and forced to sign on each page of a fabricated confession. At one stage, he was hit by a 2 by 1 piece of timber, by Anirudh in the cell. He said that he was given some meals but that he did not wish to eat some. He said that on Sunday, a high-ranking police officer visited the station but that he did not speak to him at all. However Cpl. Anirudh told the officer that the 2nd accused wanted a blanket. However he was never given a blanket although he said that he did sleep in the cell.

After all the beating, the 2nd accused said that he was in considerable pain, and that he had visible injuries. He said that his testes were swollen and painful, his stomach was painful and his feet were swollen. He was forced to go to Koronivia and point at some place while they took a photograph of him, then later saw the Justice of the Peace to whom he complained about police assault. The Justice of the Peace told him not to complain. Cpl. Anirudh was standing at the door during this interview. The 2nd accused was then taken to the hospital where Constable Nilesh spoke to the doctor. The doctor never examined them because he was with another patient, and simply wrote down what Constable Nilesh told him. They were then taken back to the Station and later taken to court. He said he told the prison doctor about the police assault, and tendered the prison medical report. That report shows that the 2nd accused, on the 5th of July 2002 complained of punches on his left side, and of the squeezing of his testes, by police. There is no record of a complaint of an assault by iron rod or timber. The doctor however recorded – “No sign of any internal or external injury.” He later made other complaints of pain and of assault by another prisoner but those findings are not relevant to the question of police assault. The report confirms that the 2nd accused is a diabetic although he is deemed fit enough for normal prison duties.

Maya Wati (his wife) gave evidence that while her husband was in custody, she was not permitted to see him, and that she had brought clothes, Colgate, toothbrush, and shaving gear for him.

Steven Nileshwar Raj gave similar evidence. Jai Govind was called to give evidence for the 2nd accused. He said that he was taken to the Nausori Police Station at 7pm on a Saturday. He did not recall the date. He said he had also gone there in the morning. He said he was taken to a room and he saw both accused there being assaulted by two police officers with a 2 inch thick and 2 feet long pipe. One officer was beating Deo Raj and the other was beating Suresh Sani. Both accused were standing up. When Jai Govind arrived, the police officers started to beat him. They made him sit on the floor and they hit him on the soles of his feet. They stepped on his fingers and made him do press-ups. The beating caused Jai Govind to urinate. They never told him why they were beating him, nor did they speak to him. He was then told to go home. He is related to both accused.

That was the defence case.

The submissions

Counsel for the 1st accused said that there were breaches of Constitutional rights, assault, oppression and fabrication of a false interview. She said that all the police witnesses were untruthful, that the Justice of the Peace was lying to protect the police, that Doctor Rickets never examined the 1st accused and falsified the medical report, and that the interviews, both caution and charge ought to be excluded.

Counsel for the 2nd accused made similar submissions. In particular he said that the inconsistent stories recorded in the interviews were evidence that the police were fabricating false statements according to the theories they considered plausible at the time, and that the accused were forced to agree to them.

State counsel pointed out that having said at the outset that the grounds for objecting to the admissibility of the confessions were assault, inducements and a false medical report, the accused had during the trial within “moved the goal posts” and had altered the nature of their objections.

He further said that the police evidence was credible and reliable, that the confessions had been voluntarily obtained from the accused, that their very inconsistencies demonstrated lack of fabrication, that there was no assault, inducements or oppression by police and that the statements, both caution and charge are admissible.

Voluntariness

I consider that the prosecution has discharged its burden to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt. In coming to this conclusion, I do not rely only on the evidence of the police witnesses, but also on the other evidence tendered.

Firstly, the station diary entries (although incomplete and sometimes inaccurate in detail) show that the accused were locked in the cells from the night of the 22nd, every night and that when checked they slept on most occasions. Although it was suggested in cross-examination by counsel that the accused did not sleep, both accused themselves agreed that they slept. This is substantiated by the diary notes, including one entry when the 2nd accused was found awake and complaining of the cold. The recording of this complaint alone indicates its veracity.

The diary entries also indicate that food was served regularly and fresh clothes delivered. Although there is no direct evidence that the accused showered and changed, IP Shyam gave evidence which I accept, that the accused appeared clean and showered every day, and that they had changed their clothes. I also accept that the police went to some lengths (the evidence of Constable Nilesh) to ensure that fresh clothes were provided. I note also that of the 10 pills brought to the station for the 2nd accused, only 8 were returned to him and that this suggests that he took 2. This was recorded in the cell book. I further accept that meals were provided, and that although the cells were by no stretch of the imagination as comfortable as private homes, their conditions were not oppressive. The evidence is also that the accused were provided with blankets after the 2nd accused complained to ACP Moses Driver that he wanted a blanket in the cell. The request, and the police response to it, in my opinion indicates that the accused had the freedom to complain and have the complaint dealt with. Further, the fact that the interview for the 2nd accused was suspended at his request, because he wanted to sleep, suggests that the accused had the ability to choose the circumstances of, and the length of, the interviews.

I am concerned about the length of custody. The longer a person is held in custody, the more likely it is that free will and voluntary conduct is eroded and sapped. The 1st accused was in custody from 9pm on 21st June 2002 to 4pm on the 25th of June. Each time he was kept in a cell (except for the night of the 21st when he was kept in the charge room) and he appears to have slept, showered and changed each day thereafter. He may have been tired on the 22nd of June because of the night spent in the charge room, but he was not interviewed again until the 23rd of June, after he had slept the night of the 22nd in the cell.

The length of time spent in custody was undoubtedly longer than can be considered acceptable. Despite the judicial stamp of approval (obtained according to the station diary, verbally at 6.30pm on Sunday 23rd of June and confirmed in writing on the 24th) the length of custody must be considered to decide whether or not the circumstances of detention were oppressive. I find in this case that the length of time the interview was held between suspensions never exceeded 4 hours (and the longest was the time spent on recording the exculpatory part of it), that there were breaks for rest and refreshments, that the accused was under caution and that he was comfortable and had no complaints establishes lack of oppression in the length and conditions of custody.

The 2nd accused was in custody for a shorter period of time (from 6pm on the 22nd to 4pm on the 25th) and I make similar findings in his case. I accept the evidence of Cpl. Anirudh that the 2nd accused spoke to ACP (Crime) Moses Driver at 7.23pm on Sunday, and that he told the Assistant Commissioner that he was well, was telling the Police the truth and that he had no complaints. I accept also that the 2nd accused was able to stop the interview for a rest when he was tired and that the police were considerate in agreeing to his request.

I now turn to the allegation of assault. The police denied any assault. The doctor found no injuries on either accused. The Justice of the Peace said the accused did not complain of assault. The accused certainly made no complaint of assault to the Magistrate on numerous appearances in the lower court. It appears that they never complained to their lawyers either, even after they were represented. If they had, the lawyers would undoubtedly have informed the Magistrate and requested medical examination. The 2nd accused complained to the prison doctor, in July 2002 but he found no injuries, 10 days after the 25th of June.

If the accused had been assaulted in such a brutal fashion, with an iron rod, needles and a piece of timber, and with punches and other assaults, they would certainly have visible injuries. Indeed the accused both say they had visible injuries. Dr. Rickets, who said he examined them on the 25th of June found no injuries. Even with a police officer standing nearby, a doctor would certainly have noticed injuries even without a thorough examination. Although the doctor agrees he did not examine the accused all over their bodies, he said he examined them and found no injuries. He assumed that the 1st accused’s complaint of a backache was caused by (invisible) soft tissue injury.

I do not accept the defence contention that Dr. Rickets falsified the report and recorded his finding without talking to or examining the accused. Dr. Rickets was, in my view quite candid about his failure to do a full examination. His demeanour showed him to be a witness who was prepared to be truthful even about the limitations of his own examination. I accept his evidence that both accused were examined by him, signed the forms in front of him and had no visible injuries nor any complaint. His recording of the 1st accused’s complaint of backache reinforces my finding in this regard. If Dr. Rickets had fabricated the report in order to exonerate the police, why did he record this complaint?

The Justice of the Peace also said that the accused made no complaint. The 2nd accused said he did complain of assault but that the J.P. told him not to complain. The evidence of the Justice of the Peace, in my view has less weight than the evidence of the doctor. Mr. Singh obviously sees himself as a responsible and senior member of the community who is often asked to do work for government departments and the police. I accept that he is an independent person. However, an accused person, held in custody at a police station, may not consider him to be independent when an interview is conducted at the police station, surrounded by police officers. In those circumstances a Justice of the Peace may simply be seen as part of the “establishment.” That is particularly so when he is seen by suspects to be drinking yaqona with the police. In this case the 2nd accused said he did complain. In fact I accept that neither complained, but that in the circumstances, that was unsurprising.

I would however have expected the accused to complain to the Magistrate. If there was time to have the charges read and explained to the accused, and the rights of counsel explained, then there was time for the accused to tell the Magistrate of the treatment they had received. Further, if the 2nd accused had difficulty walking, and had a visible bleeding injury on the jaw, the Magistrate would certainly have recorded what he would have seen, on the court record. The court record is silent on any such finding.

In all the circumstances I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no assault. I do not accept the evidence of Jai Govind in this regard. He was contradictory, in the way he said the assault occurred and his story of a sudden setting-upon by the police for no apparent reason, is very difficult to accept.

Finally, I consider the defence case of the assaults and the reason for them, to be entirely irrational. If the police intended to obtain signatures on fabricated interviews, why were there so many versions recorded? Even if the police theories had changed over time, I see no purpose in the police including all these theories in the accused’s caution interviews. Nor can I see any purpose in assaulting accused persons over a period of 4 days to get them to agree to one or more of these versions, when all that would have been required would have been force in the obtaining of the signatures. The alleged assaults would be pointless if the contents of the interviews were not to be provided by the accused anyway. The recording of the cross-reference from the 2nd accused’s interview confirms this. The inaccuracy of the time the 2nd accused gave the answer to Q68, does not point to fabrication. It does point to a pooling of information, not by the interviewing officer but possibly by other, senior officers, and to a concern that the accused may have been giving false stories to the police. In the circumstances, I see nothing sinister about the reference in the 1st accused’s interview to the 2nd accused’s answer.

Constitutional Rights

I accept that the accused were cautioned and told of their rights to counsel, a social worker or a family member, and that they waived those rights. I also accept that they did not want to see family members during interrogation. There can be no doubt that family members came to visit the accused but the accused themselves said they did not want family members present during interrogation, and the right is one which vests not in the visitors, but in the accused.

Conclusion

I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the interviews and charge statements were voluntary, obtained in circumstances which were not oppressive and that there were no breaches of Constitutional rights. They may be admitted in evidence. The question of whether the interviews are true and which version of the events are more reliable, are matters for the assessors, in the context of all the evidence in this case.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
9th February 2004