State v Vatunalaba [2010] FJHC 98; HAC134.2008R (29 March 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC 134 of 2008

STATE

V

PAULIASI VATUNALABA

Hearing: 29th March 2010
Ruling: 29th March 2010

Counsel: Ms W. George for State
Mr. T. Terere for Accused

RULING

[1] The defence applies for a no case to answer on the ground that there is no evidence of taking, which is an essential element of the offence of larceny by servant. The prosecution submits that there is direct and circumstantial evidence on the element of taking and that the case should proceed.

[2] The test for no case to answer is whether there is some relevant and admissible evidence on each element of the charged offence. The reliability and credibility of the evidence is irrelevant at this stage. If there is some relevant and admissible direct or circumstantial evidence on all the essential ingredients of the charged offence, then the case should proceed.

[3] I have considered the submissions of counsel. I am satisfied there is some evidence on all the essential ingredients of larceny by servant and I find the Accused has a case to answer. I will explain the options to the Accused.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
29th March 2010

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for Accused