State v Vono - Summing Up [2015] FJHC 86; HAC369.2013 (4 February 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Crim. Case No: HAC 369 of 2013

STATE

v.

NASONI VONO

Counsel: Ms. J Prasad with Ms. S. Navia for State
Ms. M Tarai for Accused

Hearing: 26th, 27th, 30th January, 2nd February 2015
Summing Up: 04th February 2015

SUMMING UP

[Names of the victims are suppressed. The victim in counts 1-5 will be referred to as L.D. and victim in counts 6-7 will be referred to as M.R.]

Madam Assessor and Gentlemen Assessors,

[1] It is now my duty to sum up this case to you. I will direct you on matters of Law which you must accept and act upon. On matters of fact however, which witnesses to accept as reliable, which version of the evidence to accept, these are matters for you to decide for yourselves. So if I express my opinion to you about the facts of the case, or if I appear to do so, it is a matter for you whether you accept what I say, or form your own opinions. In other words you are the judges of fact. All matters of fact are for you to decide. It is for you to decide the credibility of the witnesses and what parts of their evidence you accept as true and what parts you reject.
[2] You decide what facts are proved and what inferences you properly draw from those facts. You then apply the Law as I explain it to you and form your opinion as to whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.

[3] The counsel for accused and the prosecution made submissions to you about the facts of this case. It is their right as the counsel but, it is a matter for you to decide which version of the facts to accept, or reject.

[4] You will not be asked to give reasons for your opinions but merely your opinions themselves, and your opinions need not be unanimous but it would be desirable if you could agree on them. Your opinions are not binding on me but I can tell you that they will carry great weight with me when I deliver my judgment.

[5] On the question of proof, I must direct you as a matter of law that the onus of burden of proof lies on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts. There is no obligation on the accused person to prove his innocence. Under our criminal justice system, accused person is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.

[6] The standard of proof in a criminal trial is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means you must be satisfied so that you are sure of the accused's guilt, before you can express an opinion that he is guilty. If you have any reasonable doubt about his guilt, then you must express an opinion that he is not guilty.

[7] Your decisions must be solely and exclusively upon the evidence, which you have heard in this court and upon nothing else. You must disregard anything you might have heard about this case, outside of this courtroom.

[8] Your duty is to find the facts based on the evidence, apply the Law to those facts. Approach the evidence with detachment and objectivity. Do not get carried away by emotion.

[9] The accused is charged with five counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault. You must consider each count separately and you must not assume that because the accused is guilty on one count, that he must also be guilty on others.

[10] I will now explain to you the elements of rape.

Section 207(2) of the Crimes Decree 2009 defines the offence of rape. A person rapes another person if-

(a) the person has carnal knowledge with or of the other person without the other person's consent; or

(b) the person penetrates the vulva, vagina or anus of the other person to any extent with a thing or a part of a person's body that is not a penis without the other person's consent; or

(c) the person penetrates the mouth of the other person to any extent with the person's penis without the other persons consent.

[11] Carnal knowledge is the penetration of the vagina or anus by the penis. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was ejaculation, or even that there was full penetration.

[12] As far as the element of consent is concerned, in our law, a child under the age of 13 years is incapable of giving consent.

[13] According to the particulars of offence given in count No.1 of the information, the accused is alleged to have penetrated the vagina of the victim L.D. with his penis. So on count No. 1, prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused penetrated the vagina of L.D. with his penis, second that the alleged victim L.D. was a child under the age of 13.

[14] According to the particulars of offence given in count No.2, the accused is alleged to have penetrated the anus of L.D. with his penis. So the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused penetrated the anus of L.D. with his penis, second that L.D. was a child under the age of 13.

[15] According to the particulars given in count No. 3, the accused is alleged to have penetrated the mouth of L.D. with his penis. So the prosecution to prove count No. 3 must prove beyond reasonable doubt, first, that the accused penetrated the mouth of the complainant with his penis, second, that the victim L.D. was a child under 13 years of age.

[16] According to the particulars of offence given in count No. 4, the accused is alleged to have penetrated the vulva and vagina of L.D. with his finger. So in count No. 4, the prosecution must prove that the accused penetrated the vulva and the vagina of L.D. with his finger, second, that he did so with the intention to penetrate, third, that the complainant L.D. was a child under the age of 13 years. Person's intentions are locked up in his mind. You heard the evidence of the victims and of the accused. So it is for you to decide what the accused did and what his intentions were.

[17] According to the particulars given in count No.6, the accused is alleged to have penetrated the anus of M.R. with his penis. So in count No. 6, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused penetrated the anus of M.R. with his penis, and that M.R. was a child under the age of 13.

[18] As far as the element of consent is concerned, in our law, a child under the age of 13 years is incapable of giving consent. In this case the defence did not dispute the evidence of the victims L.D. and M.R. that they were less than 13 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore the prosecution need not prove that L.D. and M.R. did not consent to the sexual act or acts.

[19] Now I will explain to you the elements of sexual assault. Counts 5 and 7 relate to sexual assault on L.D. and M.R. respectively. For the accused to be found guilty of sexual assault, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The accused
2. Unlawfully, and
3. Indecently
4. Assaulted the complainant.
   

[20] The word unlawfully simply means without lawful excuse. Indecently assault means that the act must have some element of indecency and that right minded persons would consider the conduct indecent. If you accept that the two victims L.D. and M.R. were below 13 years of age as it is alleged by the prosecution at the time of the alleged offences were committed, then the fact that the child may have consented to the indecent assault is no defence to the charge. Whether or not a child victim agreed to an act of indecency is irrelevant to the charge. Even if she consented and you believe that the indecent assault did take place, the accused would still be guilty of the offence of sexual assault. As to whether the acts alleged are indecent, you must ask yourselves what right minded persons would think of these acts. Were the acts were so offensive to contemporary standards of modesty and privacy as to be indecent.

[21] In considering these questions you may consider the fact that the complainants were accused's granddaughters and the general nature of their relationship to decide whether or not the acts were indecent. The two alleged victims M.R. and L.D. said in evidence the acts the accused grandfather did to them. The accused says that he only bathed the children. So it is for you to decide whether he did and indecent act and that whether he acted intentionally.

Evidence

[22] Prosecution called Vaseva Nailaba Vono to give evidence first. She is the wife of Nasoni Vono. L.D. and M.R. are her grandchildren. She said she thinks that M.D. is 9 years old and that L.D. is 8 years old now.

[23] In year 2013 M.R. and L.D. had been staying with her and Nasoni because they were attending school close to her house, she said. All other grandchildren also had been staying with them. Grandchildren's mothers had been sending them money to look after them. Husband Nasoni Vono was a farmer and his farm had been just within her block of land. Her house had four bedrooms and a living area. All the bedrooms had doors, she said.

[24] She said that her husband's money went missing and they blamed the grandchildren. She had told the husband not to give money to the kids. She had told the grandchildren not to take money from the grandfather if he gives them money. Then M.R. and L.D. had told her that the grandfather used to say things to them.

[25] She had called the mothers of the grand children and only Alisi, mother of L.D. had come and had had a conversation with the girls, she said. She said that she got scared when L.D. and M.R. said that the grandfather used to say things to them because she did not want to get involved with the police.

[26] In cross examination she said that there is a short cut to go from Nakasi to Wainibuku through the cemetery and people of the area use it 24 hours. Also she said that their farm can be seen from the kitchen. When her husband takes the children for a haircut normally he takes all the grandchildren together.

[27] Further she said that whenever the money went missing her husband used to blame M.R. and L.D. As she looked after the grandchildren she always used to be with them.

[28] In re-examination she said that on some Fridays she used to leave the girls with the husband together with the grandsons.

[29] The next witness was M.T.R. She said that she is 9 years old now and is studying in class 4. Her mother is Ilisapeci. In 2013 she had been living in Wainibuku with her grandparents. He grandfather is Nasoni Vono and grandmother is Vaseva. All grandchildren (her cousins) had been living there, namely Nasoni, Epeli, L.D., also had been living there. L.D. is now 7 years old, she said. She also said that her mother always went to work and father had been in Australia.

[30] She had liked her grandfather a little bit because he did bad things to her and L.D., she said.

[31] On questioning further, she said that in the jungle he always told them to lie down and would lean on to them. Then he used to tell them to go and have a rain bath and would call them one by one. He had told her and L.D. to turn their backs to him and he puts his penis inside their anus. She said then she used to cry as it was always hard. These things he did to them inside his room. L.D. will go for a bath, and then grandfather used to call her to come and lie down. Then he would poke his hand. She demonstrated how the accused did it with his finger. She further demonstrated before you showing her front genital area and said that the place which where they pee from.

[32] When the grandfather does these things, the other family members had gone to hospital and grandmother had gone to church, she said.

[33] After poking his finger, then he wanted them to lie down and always he put his ball outside and used to put it inside their vagina, she said. Grandfather wears a sulu and nothing inside. He had done these to her many times in 2013.

[34] On questioning further, describing the jungle she said that it is dark and there is a circle there and a coconut tree.

[35] These things what her grandfather did to her, she had not told anyone because she was afraid, she said. Grandfather had told her that if she told anyone, he would poke a stick inside her mouth until she is dead.

[36] She said that she did not see what exactly grandfather did to L.D. She had not complained to grandmother.
[37] L.D's mother and her grandmother had reported the matter to Police.

[38] She said L.D., herself, and L.D.'s mother had told the grandmother. Then grandmother had asked them about it. Grandmother had told them that she saw L.D. lying down in Nasoni's room without any sulu and that when she walked in he had picked the sulu. Grandmother had said that they have to go to the police station tomorrow. She said that in 2013 she was in class 2 in school.

[39] She further said that her mother gives her pocket money to take to school. No one else gives her pocket money. She said that grandfather had hit her with a stick because one night they were making noise when he was sleeping.

[40] In cross examination she said that she told the police about the i teitei meaning jungle. When you are standing at the jungle you can see the kitchen, she said.

[41] When grandfather takes them to the jungle he would take all the grandchildren, and they all play there. Grandfather would never be alone with her, but with all cousins, she answered.

[42] When it was suggested to her that her grandfather never put his polo inside her anus as she was never alone, she answered 'yes'. Again when she was asked why she said yes, she said that at times when other children are playing he will call her inside and do that thing.

[43] She denied that her older cousins Tarusila and Finau will be with her when grandmother is not at home. She said only some times. She said that she tells Tarusila and Finau if anything happens at home. She does not tell grandmother whatever happens at home.

[44] She said that grandfather's money went missing. She said grandfather did not say that she took the money. Grandfather had said they, she and L.D. took the money.

[45] When the defence suggested that she did not tell Tarusila and Finau because grandfather did not do what she said in Court, she answered 'yes'. However when the defence suggested that grandfather did not poke her vagina with his penis, she said that he did poke. She also said that the grandfather put his polo into her pipi.

[46] She said grandfather does not bathe them. She denied that she made up these things because of the missing money.

[47] In re-examination she said the other children were outside and not inside when grandfather did these things to her. She also said that she did not tell Tarusila or Finau because grandfather said that if she tells anyone, he would poke a stick inside her mouth until she die.

[48] The next witness for the prosecution was the other alleged victim L.D.

[49] She said that she is 9 years old and in class 3 in school. Her mother is Alisi. In 2013 she was staying in Wainibuku with her grandmother. Her sister also had been staying with her. Grandfather Nasoni also had been there. Other children living there were M.R., Alisi, Epeli and Nasoni. 2013 whole year she had been in Wainibuku.

[50] She described the house of the grandparents. When asked about her relationship with the grandfather, she said that he touches her, kisses her vagina, squeezes her breasts, touched her vagina with his penis, rubbed his penis on her vagina and his penis was hard.

[51] She said that nothing happened when her grandfather touched her vagina. Witness demonstrated to you how he touched her vagina with his finger. She said that after he touched her vagina then licks the vagina. Grandfather also touched her bum with his penis. He tells her to bend and put his penis inside her anus, she said. No one was around when he did this. Grandfather also puts his penis in her mouth. He had done this inside the room. It has happened many times. All these happened inside the room when no one was in the room. When he did these things he had told her and M.R. not to tell anybody or he will smack them.

[52] She said M.R. is 9 years old, and is her cousin. She had not told anyone of what grandfather did because grandfather would smack them.

[53] She said that grandfather gave her pocket money when going to school. She said that grandfather poking his finger into her vagina happened many times. Witness demonstrated to you how grandfather did it. She said all these things did not happen inside the house. It also happened at the cemetery. At the cemetery grandfather used to take off her pants and put his penis on to her vagina, she said. She demonstrated how he did so. When he did that, M.R. and Alisi had gone to pick flowers.

[54] After her grandmother told her mother, her mother had reported it to police. When grandmother asked what grandfather did, she had told her that he touched them and also squeezed their breasts.

[55] From Narere Police she was taken to the hospital for examination. M.R. and she were examined at hospital. She had not seen grandfather doing those things to M.R.

[56] In cross examination she said that her grandfather put his penis into her vagina at the cemetery when they went to a haircut. Grandfather used to take all of them for the haircut and said in answering the questions that nothing happened at the cemetery. Grandfather putting his penis into her mouth had happened in the room. She answered that she could compete the grandfather and that she could run away when he put his penis in her mouth. Squeezing breasts, touching vagina, happened in the room, she said.

[57] These things she did not tell anyone, because she was scared that grandfather might smack her, she said.

[58] Grandmother had told her off when she asked her about the money. When the witness was asked whether she told grandmother about grandfather touching her at that time, she answered 'yes'.

[59] Witness said that grandfather only gives spending money to her and M.R. When suggested, she said that grandfather gives money to all grandchildren. She said that she told the police that these things happened in lot of places. She said she told the truth to police. She said that her mother asked her whether grandfather touched her mimi. But she did not ask her whether grandfather touched her bum.

[60] Answering the question by defence counsel she said, her grandfather never bathe her and clean her. She denied when defence suggested that.

[61] She said that her mother asked her whether grandfather put his penis into her mimi, but never asked whether he put his penis into her anus. She said that Kaveni and Veresi are her cousins. Veresi used to lick her vagina in the room she said. Kaveni used to scratch his penis and touch her vagina with the finger. Then his finger did go in, she said.

[62] When it was put to her that the things she said about grandfather never happened, she said that grandfather did it.

[63] In re-examination she said that some things happened at the cemetery. Cemetery is one of those places when she told the police that it happened in lot of places. When her grandmother asked her what grandfather did to them, they have told grandmother what he was doing to them.

[64] The prosecution called the witness Alisi Buloulou next. She is the mother of L.D. L.D. had been taken care of by her parents (L.D's grandparents). Her mother had told her that something is happening and that she asked the children. Alisi had reported it to Police. Her mother had told her that her father used to touch and do things to M.R. and L.D. Before reporting to Police she had asked L.D. and M.R. whether their grandfather did things to them. They had said 'yes'.

[65] From Narere Police they were taken to hospital.

[66] In cross examination she said that when she asked her daughter, she had told her that grandfather rubbed his penis on her vagina.

[67] The next witness for the Prosecution was Dr. Salome Daunualu. She is a qualified medical doctor and she testified about her qualifications and experience as a doctor. She has examined the alleged victims M.R. and L.R.

[68] M.R., she examined on 29/10/2013 at 10pm, she said. M.R. had been calm, confident and talked freely. On the inspection of her vagina upon taking her history, M.R's hymen had been intact. There were no signs of bruising or bleeding. She said a bruise will remain visible for 48 – 72 hours. After that time period it is normal to see absence of injuries, she said. She further said at this age for the hymen to get injured by a little finger, there has to be a number of penetrations. If the victim is examined 72 hours after the incident, injuries outside the hymen will not be visible, she said. She has not examined places other than her vagina.

[69] The witness doctor also has examined L.D. on 29/10/2013 at 10pm.

[70] On examining L.D's vagina she has seen that her hymen was not intact and that was not compatible with the history given by L.D. So she had to take the history again, she said. She had not seen any bleeding or bruising around the vaginal area. Therefore penetration would have been prior to 72 hours, she said. For a 7 year old girl to get the hymen not intact, it would be by sexual penetration by a penis or a foreign body, or to a certain extent using a finger with force for more than 1 or 2 times, she said. In her opinion, when she examined L.D., her hymen not been intact may be due to penetration of a part of a body or object or a penis, she said.
[71] She said she did not examine the other parts of the body other than the vagina of the two victims because her examination was only to see whether the hymen was intact or not.
[72] She also said that in normal circumstances if a child aged 7 years had been anally penetrated by a penis, injuries would be visible for 72 hours, similar to a vagina.

[73] In cross examination she said that if a child was allegedly penetrated by a little finger, it is possible that injuries occur to hymen. If penetration is done more than one occasion, the hymen would not be intact. Even if the child was brought after 72 hours, then you can see the hymen not intact she said.
[74] She did not examine the anus of the victims as the history given was only on vaginal penetration, she said. After taking the history she had examined L.D. and she had seen the hymen not intact. The history given was therefore not co-relating, she said.
[75] She cannot say who caused the injuries to L.D., she said.
[76] In re-examination, she said that it is possible for the hymen to be intact if the penetration is with little force and even more than once.
[77] The prosecution called Detective Constable 4791 Tupua who recorded the caution interview statement of the accused to give evidence.
[78] On 30/10/2013 he has recorded the caution interview statement of the accused Nasoni Vono at Nakasi Police Station. Caution interview was conducted in I-Taukei language. He submitted the statement as Exhibit 1A and the English translation as Exhibit 1B. He identified Nasoni Vono's signature on the bottom of pages. Nasoni Vono was given his rights and also the breaks during the interview, he said. The English translation, Exhibit 1B was read over to you in court.
[79] In cross examination he said the interview was recorded at Nakasi Police Station and the accused was being held at Wainiboka Police Post. He said that Nasoni Vono used the word "Vakasilimi" at the interview meaning 'bathing'. Nasoni Vono explained how he was bathing the children. Witness denied that bathing was the only thing accused did to children.
[80] Witness said the word 'Vakasagai' has several meaning and that the accused used the word 'Vakasagai'. Witness denied when it was suggested to him that the answer given in Question 70 was that "my wife and the rest of my grandchildren were home when I was bathing".

[81] It was suggested that the witness never asked Question 74 which the witness denied. Witness also denied when it was suggested to him that he did not ask the Question 91 of Exhibit 1A.
[82] Witness also said that accused never asked to change the word "Vakasagai" and to use the word "Vakasilimi". He also said that he posed the Question 82. He denied that the accused said that he could not read or write.
That was the evidence for the Prosecution. Madam and Gentlemen assessors.
[83] At the end of the prosecution case you heard me explain several options to the accused. He has these options because he does not have to prove anything. The burden to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains on the prosecution all times. The accused chose to give evidence and subject himself for cross examination. So you have to consider his evidence carefully.
[84] The accused said that he never went to school. He denied all the allegations against him. He denied all what the two alleged victims M.R. and L.D. said in court that he did sexual acts on them.
[85] About the recording of the caution interview he said that he did not admit the allegations. He told the police that he only bathed them he said.
[86] He never asked the police officer to read the statement back to him, he said. He denied doing any sexual act to L.D. in the cemetery or doing any sexual act to M.R. in the 'i teitei'.
[87] He said that he only bathed the children, took their clothes off and rubbed their bodies only.
[88] In cross examination he said that he did not tell the police that he bathed the girls nicely in between their private parts. He denied telling that to police. When it was suggested that he told the police that he bathed the girls nicely in between their private parts in order to explain the medical findings he denied that he told the police so. He did not agree when the prosecution suggested that he told that to police that it happened while bathing was to make it less serious.
[89] He said that the caution interview statement was read over to him by the police officer but he did not admit.
[90] He was questioned at length about the layout of the house and whether the bedroom can be seen from the plantation. He said that the people in the farm can see what is happening in his bedroom. However later on questioning the layout he said that they can't see what is happening in the bedroom from the farm.
[91] He said that he was given pocket money to L.D. only once, that is to go on a field trip. He used to give pocket money to all some times.
[92] He was also questioned about the cemetery. You remember that he said that the cemetery is a very large one, but people in the other end can see what the others do in the other end.
[93] He had taken all the children for a haircut only once. He denied inserting his penis into L.D's vagina at the cemetery. He also denied doing sexual acts in the room.
[94] He denied inserting his finger into L.D.'s vagina, denied inserting penis into M.R.'s anus, denied squeezing L.D.'s breasts, licking her vagina. He denied threatening to beat them if they told these to anyone.

[95] In re examination he said that he never took L.D. for a haircut alone but with other children.That was the evidence for the defence.
[96] Madam assessor and gentlemen assessors,

You heard the evidence of many witnesses. If I did not mention a particular witness or a particular piece of evidence that does not mean it's unimportant. You should consider and evaluate all the evidence in coming to your decision.

[97] The written agreed facts are before you. Parties agreed that the accused Nasoni Vono is the grandfather of the complainants L.D. and M.R. You may accept those facts as if they had been led from witnesses from the witness box.

[98] You must use your commonsense when deciding on the facts. Observe and assess the evidence of all witnesses and their demeanour in arriving at your opinions.

Analysis

[99] The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of rape in counts 1, 2,3,4,6 and all the elements of sexual assault in counts 5 and 7 as I explained to you. As regards the element of consent, as the defence has not disputed the evidence of the victims that they are below 13 years of age, consent of the victims for the sexual acts is immaterial.

[100] You may have observed that when some witnesses gave evidence, there were some inconsistencies between the evidence before this court and the statement given to the police. What you should take into consideration is only the evidence given by the witness in court and not any other previous statement given by the witness. However you should also take into consideration the fact that such inconsistencies between the evidence before court and statement to police, can affect the credibility of the witness.

[101] When evaluate the evidence, you may consider these inconsistencies and the explanations given by those witnesses, when deciding on the credibility. You may also consider the probabilities of the events testified by the witnesses. When you consider the evidence of the victims L.D. and M.R., you may take into account the relationship between the victims and the accused and also their age.

[102] The accused denied some of the questions were put to him at the caution interview. He also denied giving some of the answers. He said that he denied all the allegations. The detective constable who recorded the interview testified to the correctness of the interview and the recording. He said that gave all the rights to the accused. It is for you to decide whose evidence is reliable and to be accepted.

[103] Counsel for defence questioned the victims as to why they did not complain to anybody or at least the grandmother about the things what accused did to them. M.R. said that she was scared of the accused as he has said that he would poke a stick in her mouth until she die. L.D. said that she was scared that accused would smack her. So you consider all the evidence, the relationship of the victims and the accused, the circumstances under which they were living, their age, when you decide whether there was a delay in complaining and if so whether the delay is justified in the given circumstances.

[104] The doctor who examined L.D. said that her hymen was not intact. It can be due penetration of an object, penis or a finger she said. In any event medical evidence did not implicate the accused. In answering the questions by the defence counsel, L.D. said that her cousin Veresi used to lick her vagina and her cousin Kaveni told her to scratch his penis. She also said that Kaveni was touching her vagina and his finger went inside the vagina.

[105] The question you have to ask yourselves is, whether the accused raped the victims as alleged and whether the accused sexually assaulted the alleged victims. Not whether Veresi or Kaveni did any sexual act to L.D. Therefore you need not take into consideration the evidence that L.D. had any previous sexual history. All what you have to consider is to see whether the prosecution has proved the elements of the offences rape and sexual assault as I explained to you.

[106] . The complainants testified as to what happened. Defence says that these complaints were made up because of the missing money issue. It is for you to decide which story you are going to believe Whether the Prosecution story or the defence story.

[107] You will have to consider all the evidence led before court when coming to your conclusion. You have to decide which witnesses are credible and which are not.

[108] It is a matter for you to decide on the facts and to decide whether the accused has committed the offences as charged or not, whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

[109] I have explained the legal principles to you. You will have to evaluate all the evidence, and apply the law as I explained to you when you consider whether the charges against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[110] Your opinions on the charges of Rape and sexual assault will be either guilty or not guilty.

[111] Madam Assessor and Gentlemen assessors,

This concludes my summing up of the Law. Now you may retire and deliberate together and may form your individual opinions on the charges against the accused. You may peruse any of the exhibits you like to consider. When you have reached your separate opinions you will come back to court and you will be asked to state your separate opinion.

Priyantha Fernando
JUDGE

Solicitors
Office of the Director of Prosecution for State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for Accused