State v Koroivuki [2010] FJHC 60; HAC013.2008 (11 February 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 013 OF 2008
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 67 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

STATE
PROSECUTION

AND:

LAISIASA KOROIVUKI
ACCUSED PERSON

Counsel: Ms. A. Tuiketei - State
In person - Accused Person

Date of Hearing: 8th February, 2010 & 10th February, 2010
Date of Ruling: 11th February, 2010

RULING ON VOIR DIRE

The accused in this case is charged for being in possession of 1808.5 grams of cannabis an illicit drug on 15th January, 2008. He challenges the admissibility of his confession made to the Police.

At the Pre-trial conference held before Hon. Justice Goundar on 7/2/2010 accused appearing in person challenging the confession informed court that he was assaulted during the arrest by a Fijian officer in civilian clothes. He was slapped on the back of the head and he fell down. Further he said that he was not assaulted at the Valelevu Police Station and was not assaulted during the interview and that the officer who slapped him was not involved at the interview. One of the officers whom he cannot recollect had told that he would not be released unless one of them confesses.

The trial within trial was held for two days from which the assessors were excluded.

The law on admissibility of confessions is settled. The burden of proving that the statement of the accused was obtained voluntarily and without threat or promise or inducement is on the prosecution. The burden is also on the prosecution to prove that the statement was obtained without any violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, and if there were such violations that the accused was not prejudiced by those violations. The standard of proof is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

At the trial within trial – four witnesses were called by the prosecution out of which three police officers who were involved in the raid and the police officer who recorded the caution statement in question.

The evidence lead by the prosecution is that on information received by the Police that illicit drugs were being sold at the premises of Apisai Sulua, Police have conducted a surveillance to establish the truth of the information. After establishing the truth of the information they conducted the raid. For the raid around 20 officers from the Drugs Intelligence and Enforcement Unit, Police Mobile Division and Dogs Section have participated. The house had been a two storey one and there had been about 5 boys including the accused and a woman in the house at the time of the raid according to the witness DC 4092 Christopher. The teams of officers have searched upstairs and downstairs separately and found the illicit drugs (sachets containing drugs) from the rooms upstairs and in a cabinet downstairs.

After the drugs were found according to the witnesses for the prosecution the accused has admitted that the drugs belonged to him.

From there accused and the drugs were brought to the Valelevu Police Station in the bus in which some of the police officers went to the raid.

All witnesses denied having assaulted, giving promises, threats or inducements to the accused.

On cross-examining the witnesses accused suggested that he was slapped by a police officer in civilian clothes when he was taken to the bus from the house, which was denied by the witnesses.

The officer who recorded the caution statement of the accused at the Valelevu Police Station Cpl 1473 Jolame Nabukele who did not participate in the raid also gave evidence and said that the accused rights were properly explained to him before the interview. Further he said that the accused was never threatened and accused made the statement voluntarily. The accused had not made any allegation or complaint against the police.

It was suggested to the witness by the accused that Sgt Epeli who had been there at the police station has said that no one can be released until someone is charged. Witness denied the allegation and said that he didn’t hear such thing.

On behalf of the accused, accused himself gave evidence on oath and his brother in law Henry David Baily gave evidence. Accused said when he was being questioned by the officer Jolame he told him the reason for his being in Suva. He further said he came to Suva from Lautoka to make a complaint regarding his days of working. He had been working for a Security firm in Lautoka.

He further said that he told the officer Jolame that the drugs are not his and still as one of the officers said that none of them would be released and somebody must admit he admitted.

The witness brother in-law of accused said in evidence that the accused came to Suva on the 13th to make a complaint.

Having heard all the evidence placed before court I find that the evidence of the Police officers that the accused was not assaulted when he was taken to the bus can be accepted. When accused gave evidence in his evidence in chief he never said he was slapped as he suggested to the Police officers. Same way witness brother in-law who was there at the time of the raid never said that the accused was slapped by the Police officers.

The evidence of the accused is that he made the confession as one of the Police officers at the Valelevu Police Station said that no one will be released until someone admits. On that he had been inconsistent. He suggested to the officer Jolame that at the interview Sgt. Epeli was interviewing another lady and that Sgt. Epeli said no one can be released until someone is charged. But in his evidence he did not name the officer who said that. He said one of the officers said so. I find this as an afterthought of the accused to show that the confession should not be accepted.

I further consider the demeanor of the Police officers to be honest and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was not assaulted or oppressed by the Police officers and find that the confession made at in the caution interview statement was made voluntarily.

I find the caution statement to be admissible.

Priyantha Fernando
Puisne Judge

11/02/2010