State v Takiveikata [2011] FJHC 131; HAC005.2004 (2 March 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC005 of 2004

STATE

V

RATU INOKE TAKIVEIKATA

Hearing Dates: 16 – 28 February 2011
Judgment: 2 March 2011

Counsel: Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu & Mr. P. Katia for State
Mr. V. Vosarogo for Accused

JUDGMENT

[1] Four assessors have found the Accused guilty of inciting to mutiny. One assessor has expressed not guilty opinion on the charge.

[2] I bear in mind the directions on the law and evidence contained in my summing up.

[3] The prosecution case substantially depends on evidence of witnesses who are accomplices.

[4] It is not in dispute that mutinous act occurred in this case. On 2 November 2000, Stevens, Bonafasio and other CRW soldiers attempted to takeover the military barracks with the ultimate aim to remove the commander, Voreqe Bainimarama from his position.

[5] Stevens and Bonafasio have been convicted for their roles in the attempted takeover.

[6] Stevens was obstructive when he gave evidence. He refused to answer most of the questions by saying he could not recall, even after his memory was refreshed with the statement he gave to the police. I give no weight to Steven's evidence.

[7] Turagacati and Bonafasio on the other hand struck me as credible and reliable witnesses when they gave evidence. These witnesses were cross-examined on their previous statements to show inconsistencies in their evidence in court. I find the inconsistencies to be insignificant and irrelevant.

[8] There are no inconsistencies in their evidence in respect to the real issues in the case, namely, whether the Accused knowingly urged or encouraged Stevens and Bonafasio to commit the mutinous act of takeover of the military barracks, intending that they execute the takeover.

[9] Turagacati was an immuned witness. I bear in mind the danger of relying on immuned and accomplice evidence. I have considered the reasons submitted by the defence to show Turagacati and Bonafasio had hidden agendas to give evidence against the Accused. I accept there is no corroboration of their evidence.

[10] However, I have closely observed the demeanour of these witnesses when they gave evidence and I am satisfied that Turagacati and Bonafasio told the truth in this court.

[11] I draw no adverse inference against the Accused for not giving evidence. That was perfectly his right.

[12] The prosecution has satisfied me of the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he is convicted as charged.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
2 March 2011

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Mamlakah Lawyers for Accused