Nadakuitamana v The State [2005] FJHC 96; HAA0126J.2004S (28 April 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: HAA0126 OF 2004S

Between:

SIRISIO NADAKUITAMANA
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 27th April 2005
Judgment: 28th April 2005

Counsel: Mr. A. Vakaloloma for Appellant
Mr. D. Toganivalu for State

JUDGMENT

On the 12th of August 2004, the Appellant was convicted of the offence of rape and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The record shows that when the charge was read to the Appellant, he understood it and pleaded guilty after waiving his right to counsel. The facts were that on the 11th of August 2004, the Appellant was drinking with the complainant, her sister and her sister’s husband at a night club in Suva. She fell asleep in a hotel room. The Appellant entered the room and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. When she resisted, he threatened to remove the gold denture recently fitted in her mouth. The complainant’s brother-in-law then entered the room and found the Appellant having sexual intercourse with the complainant. He chased the Appellant away. The matter was reported to police, and the Appellant was charged. The complainant was medically examined and found to have bruises on her neck.

The Appellant disputed one previous conviction in 1999 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In mitigation he expressed remorse. His aunt mitigated on his behalf, saying that he had had problems since his youth, that he had drunk heavily on the night in question, and that he was very sorry for what had happened.

The learned Magistrate started at 7 years imprisonment and gave him two years discount for the guilty plea and other mitigation. He sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment. The appellant now appeals against conviction and sentence. His original grounds of appeal were against sentence only. He was then unrepresented. He later was granted legal aid, and then filed amended grounds of appeal which also challenged his conviction. His grounds of appeal were as follows:

“2.1 That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he failed to consider before and while sentencing that the accused was unrepresented.

2.2 That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he failed to advice the accused of his constitutional right, the right to be legally represented by counsel of his choice or a council provided by Legal Aid Commission.

• 2.3 That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he failed to properly assess evidence tendered in court by witness and also the summary of fact.
  
• 2.4 That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he failed to properly assessed and consider the medical evidence in respect of the accused state of mind that was provided by witness.
  
• 2.5 That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he did not take into consideration that the evidence tendered in court was uncorroborated.
  
• 2.6 That the sentence is harsh and excessive.
  

At the hearing of this appeal, counsel proceeded substantially on ground 2.4, that is that the Appellant’s state of mind suggested a mental illness which ought to have been considered before plea was taken. There was nothing specific on the court record to suggest that the Appellant was mentally ill. However, I granted leave to the Appellant to adduce further evidence in the form of a psychiatric report. State counsel did not object.

On the 31st of March 2005, the Principal medical Officer at the St. Giles Hospital provided a medical report on the Appellant. She traced the Appellant’s history from birth including his slow development as a child and head injuries sustained in 2001 in a motor vehicle accident. The psychiatrist concluded after tests that:

“A mini-mental state examination conducted on Mr. Nadakuitamana rendered a score of 19/30. A score less than 23 is indicative of cognitive impairment. From the history provided by his mother and Mr. Nadakuitamana’s presentation during his admissions, it appears that he has some degree of mental retardation and has developed personality and behavioral changes in addition to further cognitive impairment secondary to the head injury. In my opinion, as a result of his mental disabilities, Mr. Nadakuitamana will not be able to properly follow or withstand the rigors of legal proceedings and is not fit to plead.”

In the light of this report, it is not necessary to consider the other grounds of appeal. State counsel agrees that the plea is invalid and that the entire proceedings must be quashed.

Indeed if the learned Magistrate’s attention had been drawn to the Appellant’s mental condition, he himself would have called for, and received this report. He too would have concluded that the Appellant could not plead or be sentenced because of his inability to follow the court proceedings.

In the circumstances, the Appellant’s plea in the lower court is invalid, and must be quashed, together with his conviction and sentence.

Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the High Court, in the exercise of its appellate powers to “make such other order in the matter as to it may seem just, and may by such order exercise any power which the magistrates’ court might have exercised.”

Section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:

“(1) When, in the course of a trial or preliminary inquiry or at any time after a formal charge has been presented or drawn up, the court has reason to believe that the accused may be of unsound mind so as to be incapable of making his defence, it shall inquire into the fact of such unsoundness and may adjourn the case under the provisions of section 202 for the purposes of obtaining a medical report and of making such other enquiries as it shall deem to be necessary.

(2) If the court is of opinion that the accused is of unsound mind so that he is incapable of making his defence, it shall postpone further proceedings in the case and shall report the case to the Governor-General.

(3) If the case is one in which bail may be taken, the court may release the accused person on sufficient security being given that he will be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his appearance before the court or such officer as the court may appoint in that behalf.

(4) Upon consideration of the court record the Governor-General may order that the accused may be confined in a mental hospital or other suitable place of custody and the court shall issue a warrant in accordance with such order. Any such order of the Governor-General shall be sufficient authority for the detention of such accused person until the Governor-General shall make a further order in the matter or until the court finding him incapable of making his defence shall order him to be brought it again in the manner provided by sections 151 and 152.”

In accordance with this section, and because I have reason to believe that the Appellant is incapable of making his defence, I postpone further proceedings in the case to make a report to the His Excellency the President. In making the report, I will refer to the additional evidence I heard from the Appellant’s mother, Katarina Rarasea of Narikoso, Ono, Kadavu. She has expressed her willingness to take responsibility for her son when and if he is released from custody. She said that the Appellant, whilst resident in Kadavu, fishes and farms, and gives no trouble to anyone. His anti-social behaviour only manifests itself when he has access to alcohol, and when he comes to Suva. She said that the turaga-ni-koro for their community, one Ratu Jale Sarasao would also take responsibility for the Appellant if ordered by the court of His Excellency the President. She also mentioned her cousin Marasiale Bole, who would also take care of the Appellant if she herself had to come to Suva for medical purposes.

Clearly, the St. Giles Hospital is not the appropriate place for the Appellant, and indeed the psychiatrist does not suggest that he should be kept in custody there. However I am concerned about the Appellant’s propensity to violence, and of the need to protect the community from such characteristics. There are no easy answers in Fiji, for the care of the mentally ill or the mentally retarded.

In the circumstances of this case I propose to recommend to His Excellency that the Appellant be kept until further order of the Court or of the President, in the custody of his mother Katarina Rarasea, his cousin Marasiale Bole and the turaga-in-koro of the village, Ratu Jale Sarasao. A condition of the order should be that the Appellant should not be permitted to leave Kadavu unless summoned by the court.

Whilst waiting for an order from His Excellency the appellant should not be further remanded. Prison is not an appropriate place for the mentally retarded. I therefore grant him bail on condition that he returns forthwith to Kadavu with his mother. Surety in the form of his mother is acceptable. He may not leave Kadavu and must remain at the home of his mother at Narikoso, Ono, Kadavu.

This appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence are quashed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
28th April 2005