State v Mani - Ruling No Case to Answer [2012] FJHC 1051; HAC98.2010 (23 April 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 098/2010

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

EPARAMA MANI

BEFORE: Hon. Justice Mr Prabaharan Kumararatnam
COUNSEL: Mr.L.Fotofili and Mr.Vosawale for the State
Accused in Person

Date of Hearing: 19/04/2012
Date of Ruling: 23/04/2012

RULING

01. The prosecution closed their case on 19/04/2012. When defence was called and explained the rights of the accused prosecution pursuant to section 231(1) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009, invited the court to consider whether accused has a case to answer. The accused is charged as follows:

Statement of Offence

Aggravated Robbery: Contrary to section 311(1) (b) of the Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

EPARAMA MANI with others, on the 27th of April 2010 at Samabula in the Central Division, armed with an offensive weapon namely an axe, stole a Sekonda wrist watch valued at $300.00, one Pentex digital camera valued at $299.00,one orange Billa Bong bag valued at $440.00, a Puma sports bag valued at $25.00, one Speedo Swimwear valued at $220.00, one Nokia Mobile phone valued at $159.00, a ladies hand bag valued at $35.00, men's wallet valued at $15.00 all the total estimated valued of $1295.00 from Raymond John Nicolls.

02. The prosecution relies on circumstantial and material evidence to prove the charge. Also rely on caution interview statement of the accused.

03. The test at this stage of trial is whether there is some evidence on each elements of the offence. The evidence must be relevant and admissible. In Kalisoqo v R Criminal Appeal No: 52 of 1984, the Court of Appeal took the view that if there is some direct or circumstantial evidence on the charged offence, the a..... judge cannot say there is no evidence on the proper construction of section 293(1). This view was later confirmed by the Court of Appeal in State v Moses Tuisawau Cr.App. 14/90.

04. In State v Woo Chin Chae [2000] HAC 023/99S Madam Shameem J summarized test under section 293(1):

"In order to come to the conclusion that there was evidence direct or circumstantial, and irrespective of its weight, credibility or its tenuous nature it must be shown that the evidence in question is relevant, admissible and is in totality inculpatory of the accused. That means that the evidence in its totality must at least touch on all the essential ingredients of the offence"

05. In State v George Shiu Raj & Shashi Shalendra Pal [2006] AAU0081/05 Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the correct approach under 293(1) is to ask whether there is some relevant and admissible evidence on each element of the charged offence, and not whether the evidence is inherently vague or incredible.

06. The prosecution led evidence that the accused with some others unknown to prosecution on 27/04/2010 forcefully entered complainant's house and stole property valued at $1295.00 from Raymond John Nicolls. Complainant could not identify any body. He identified certain production shown to him during his testimony.

07. Accused was arrested at a road block set up by the police after receiving secret information that accused was travelling in a white coloured vehicle. He was taken to Samabula Police Station. Accused at the police station, admitted the charge under caution. An axe was recovered from accused's house.

08. Some stolen articles had been recovered from the house of Ms. Mere Taleilakeba who had given information to the police. Though summons issued she was not called to give evidence by the prosecution.

09. The accused was produced before a doctor at Samabula Health Centre after recording his interview. The doctor had noted slight swelling below left eye. According to her this could be due to blunt force.

10. Without going in detail the evidence led by prosecution in support of the charge, I am satisfied that there is some evidence of involvement of the accused in committing the offence. This matter of course, a matter for the assessors to consider with all the evidence including the caution interview.

11. I find the accused has a case to answer and he is therefore put to his defence.

P.Kumararatnam
JUDGE

At Suva
23/04/2012