PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2017 >> [2017] FJHC 443

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Cokanauto - Summing Up [2017] FJHC 443; HAC327.2015S (23 June 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 327 OF 2015S


STATE


vs


JONE RABUNO COKANAUTO


Counsels : Mr. M. Vosawale and Ms. L. Bogitini for State
Mr. S. Valenitabua for Accused
Hearings : 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22 June, 2017
Summing Up : 23 June, 2017


SUMMING UP


  1. ROLE OF JUDGE AND ASSESSORS
  1. Madam and Gentlemen Assessors, it is my duty to sum up to you. In doing so, I will direct you on matters of law, which you must accept and act upon. On matters of fact however, what evidence to accept and what evidence to reject, these are matters entirely for you to decide for yourselves. So if I express my opinion on the facts of the case, or if I appears to do so, then it is entirely a matter for you whether you accept what I say or form your own opinions. You are the judges of fact.
  2. State and Defence Counsels have made submissions to you, about how you should find the facts of this case. That is in accordance with their duties as State and Defence Counsels, in this case. Their submissions were designed to assist you, as the judges of fact. However, you are not bound by what they said. It is you who are the representatives of the community at this trial, and it is you who must decide what happened in this case, and which version of the evidence is reliable.
  3. You will not be asked to give reasons for your opinions, but merely your opinions themselves and they need not be unanimous. Your opinions are not binding on me, but I will give them the greatest weight, when I deliver my judgment.
  1. THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
  1. As a matter of law, the onus or burden of proof rest on the prosecution throughout the trial, and it never shifts to the accused. There is no obligation on the accused to prove his innocence. Under our system of criminal justice, an accused person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.
  2. The standard of proof in a criminal trial, is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that 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 so that you are not sure about his guilt, then you must express an opinion, that he is not guilty.
  3. Your decision must be based 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. You must decide the facts without prejudice or sympathy, to either the accused or the victims. Your duty is to find the facts based on the evidence, and to apply the law to those facts, without fear, favour or ill will.
  1. THE INFORMATION
  1. You have a copy of the information with you, and I will now read the same to you:

“...[read from the information]...”


  1. THE MAIN ISSUES
  1. In this case, as assessors and judges of fact, each of you will have to answer the following questions:

You are actually conducting 10 trials on each count in one proceeding. Please, carefully consider each count separately and come to a considered decision on each count separately, in the light of the whole evidence given at the trial.


  1. THE OFFENCES AND THEIR ELEMENTS
  1. The accused was charged with 10 counts. Five of the counts were “rape”, one was “attempted rape” and four counts were “indecent assault”. In terms of the seriousness of the counts, we will begin our discussion first with “rape”, then “attempted rape” and lastly “indecent assault”.
  2. On the “rape”, four counts were charged under the Penal Code, chapter 17. These were counts no. 1, 2, 3 and 7. These alleged rapes were said to have occurred prior to 1 February 2010. Prior to 1 February 2010, the Penal Code was the applicable law on rape. “Rape” at the time, only included alleged penetration of the complainant’s vagina by the accused’s penis without her consent. After 1 February 2010, the applicable law on “rape” was the Crimes Act 2009. Under the Crimes Act 2009, the definition of “rape” was extended to include penetration of a person’s vagina or anus with a thing or a part of a person’s body that is not a penis. Thus we have count no. 5, which was charged under the Crimes Act 2009.
  3. On count no. 1, 2, 3 and 7, for the accused to be found guilty of rape, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following elements:
  4. On count no. 5, for the accused to be found guilty of rape, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following elements:
  5. In law, the slightest penetration of the complainant’s vagina by the accused’s penis (count no. 1, 2, 3 and 7) or finger (count no. 5), is sufficient to satisfy element 11(i) or element 12(i) mentioned above. There does not need to be full penetration of the vagina by the penis or finger, and whether or not the accused ejaculated, is totally irrelevant.
  6. Consent is to “agree freely and voluntarily and out of her own free will”, and she must have the necessary mental capacity to give her consent. If consent was obtained by force, threat, intimidation, or fear of bodily harm, or by exercise of authority over her, or by false and fraudulent representation to her about the nature or purpose of the act, that “consent” is deemed, in law, to be no consent. The consent must be freely and voluntarily given by the complainant, and out of her own free will. If the consent was induced by fear, it is no consent at all.
  7. It must also be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew the complainant was not consenting to 11(i) or 12(i) above, at the time. Alternatively, the prosecution must make you sure that the accused, when he did 11(i) or 12(i) above, he was reckless as to whether or not the complainant was consenting to the same, at the time. You will have to look at the parties’ conduct, at the time, and the surrounding circumstances, to decide the above issues.
  8. Count no. 8 involved “attempted rape”. For the accused to be found guilty of “attempted rape”, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements:
  9. In paragraph 16 (iii) and (iv) above, that is, “to rape the complainant”, has the same meaning described to it as discussed in paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 hereof. The verb “attempt” is the physical act required to commit the offence. This “act of attempt” is the physical element of the offence. First, the accused must have the intention to rape the complainant. This is the mental or fault element of the offence. Before “any act of attempt” is made, the accused must first have the intention to rape the complainant. That intention itself is not an offence. To complete the offence of “attempted rape”, the accused must manifest that intention by some overt physical acts that is more than merely preparatory. For example, telling the girl to take off her clothes, telling her to lie on the bed, fiddling with her vagina, lying on top of her naked vagina, and telling her he was going to have sex with her. Once the mental element of the offence is present, and the overt acts mentioned above done, the crime of “attempted rape” is completed.
  10. Counts no. 4, 6, 9 and 10 involved “indecent assault”. For the accused to be found guilty, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following elements:
  11. The physical element of the offence is the verb “assault”. To “assault” someone is to apply unlawful force to the person of another, for example, to punch someone in the face, without justifiable reasons, is to apply unlawful force to the person of another. Likewise, to kiss someone on the lips or to insert someone’s finger in someone’s vagina, without that person’s consent, is to apply unlawful force to the person of another. The application of force to the person of another must be unlawful in that it was done without any legal justification.
  12. The “assault” must not only be “unlawful”, it must also be “indecent”. An “indecent assault” is one committed in circumstances of indecency. A circumstance of indecency is what right-minded people would consider indecent, for example, a pastor intimately kissing a female follower in the lips or inserting his finger into her vagina. It was therefore essential for the prosecution to make you sure that the assault was not only unlawful, it was also indecent, in that right minded people would consider it to be indecent.
  1. THE PROSECUTION’S CASE
  1. The prosecution’s case were as follows. At the age of 38 years, the accused (DW1) found the Jezreel Lion of Judah Ministry at Vunidawa, Welagi, Taveuni. They organized themselves into prayer groups of 10 to 12 people or less, and prayed for people who are sick or are experiencing difficulties in their daily lives. They are a Christian group and rely on the bible for their teachings and sermons. The accused is the leader of the Ministry and a Church Minister by profession. He preaches to the group and every now and then he delivers sermons to them from the bible. He is married with 8 children. His children and followers live with him in Welagi, Taveuni. He also does counselling for his followers.
  2. According to the prosecution, the group had church services every night between 8pm to 9pm, and also a service at 6pm every day. On Sunday, their service is from 10am or 10.30am. The group had grown from 200 to 500, and members reside in Welagi, other parts of Fiji and even abroad. In 2002, complainant no. 1 (PW1) joined the Ministry. She was 15 years old at the time. In 2004, complainant no. 3 (PW3) joined the Ministry. She dropped out of Form 6 to work for the Ministry full time. She was 18 years old at the time. In 2005, complainant no. 2 (PW2) also joined the Ministry. She was 22 years old at the time. Complainant no. 4 (PW4) also joined the Ministry at the time. She was 20 years old at the time. Both PW2 and PW4 were then students of the University of the South Pacific. All the complainants said they were attracted to the Ministry because of the power of their prayers and the messages of God they got from the sermons.
  3. According to the prosecution, the accused, as their leader and pastor, often preached to them about the “woman of Samaria” in the bible, that is, as described in Saint John, chapter 4, verse 1 to 42. In the story, Jesus was sitting by a well. A woman from Samaria came to draw water from the well. Jesus was tired from his journey. Jesus asked the woman for a drink of water. The woman refused as Samaritan and Jews do no mix. Then Jesus told her if she knew the gift of God and who it is who ask “Give me a drink”, she would have ask him and he would give her living water. Jesus told her later that whoever drinks from the well will thirst again; but whoever drinks from the water he gives will never thirst again. Later, the women ask Jesus for the living water, so that she may not thirst again. According to the prosecution, the accused, when preaching to the complainants and others, often misrepresented the above bible story. It was alleged he said that, all woman were temples of God. The woman from Samaria was a prostitute as she had 5 husbands previously. She needed to be cleansed, in order for the temple to be clean. Living water should be given to her to cleanse her. The living water was his semen, and he needed to penetrate women’s vaginas to cleanse them. He was doing the work of God, as he is a man of God. According to the prosecution, the complainants were led to believe this was the gospel truth.
  4. Between 1 and 28 February 2005, the accused, during a prayer session, in his bedroom at Welagi Taveuni, partly inserted his penis into complainant no. 1’s (PW1) vagina (count no. 1). Between 1 August and 31 November 2005, the accused, after a prayer session at Nadera Nasinu, inserted his penis into complainant no. 1’s (PW1) vagina (count no. 2) and later ejaculated into the same. Between 1 July and 31 December 2006, at Welagi Taveuni, the accused again inserted his penis into complainant no. 1’s (count no. 3) vagina and ejaculated therein. On all the above occasions, PW1 consented to the same, as she was under the impression that she was been cleansed, given the accused’s above sermons. It was the prosecution’s case that the accused had deceived the complainant into thinking she had been spiritually cleansed, when in fact she had not. The prosecution contended that complainant no. 1 (PW1) had not consented in law, and the accused well knew of this, when he inserted his penis into her vagina, during those times.
  5. Between 1 January to 31 July 2006, at Nadera Nasinu, the accused kissed complainant no. 2’s (PW2) neck and breast and later sucked her nipples and vagina. Later he rubbed his penis on her vagina (count no. 4). Between 1 and 31 July 2012, at Welagi Taveuni, the accused penetrated complainant no. 2’s vagina with his finger (count no. 5). Between 1 November to 31 December 2005, at Nadera Nasinu, the accused inserted two of his fingers into complainant no. 3’s (PW3) vagina and with one hand fondled her breast (count no. 6). He later inserted his penis into her vagina for 2 to 3 minutes (count no. 7). Between 1 February to 28 February 2006, at Nadera Nasinu, the accused prayed over complainant no. 4’s (PW4) vagina and later rubbed his penis on her vagina and put some semen into the same (count no. 8); later he kissed her lips (count no. 9) and inserted his little finger into her vagina (count no. 10). In all the above episodes, the complainants consented to the accused’s sexual acts, because they thought he was cleansing them spiritually. This was the perception they got from his teachings on the woman of Samaria. However, it was the prosecution’s contention that the accused deceived them into thinking they had been cleansed, when in fact they had not been. According to the prosecution, all the complainants had been deceived that they were being cleansed, and as such their consent to the sexual acts, were really no consent in law, and the accused was well aware of the above, at the time.
  6. Given the above, the prosecution is asking you, as assessors and judges of fact, to find the accused guilty as charged, on all counts. That was the case for the prosecution.
  1. THE ACCUSED’S CASE
  1. On 13 June 2017, the first day of the trial, the information was put to the accused, in the presence of his counsel. He pleaded not guilty to all the ten counts. In other words, he denied all the allegations against him. When a prima facie case was found against him, at the end of the prosecution’s case, wherein he was called upon to make his defence, he choose to give sworn evidence and called 6 witnesses. That was his right.
  2. The accused’s (DW1) case was very simple. In the parties’ “Agreed Facts”, he admitted he founded the Jezreel Lion of Judah Ministry in 2000. In his sworn evidence, he admitted the Ministry was not a church, but a prayer group. He said, they were not registered. In the “Agreed Facts”, he admitted he is a church minister and leader of the prayer group. He admitted, members of the group possessed spiritual gifts. He said, their main base was at Welagi, Taveuni, and the group was open to all people and of all ages. He said, they pray for the sick, and pray for people who have life problems. He said, they were Christians and based their work from the bible. He said, at present, there was roughly 500 members who resided in Welagi, Taveuni, other parts of Fiji and even abroad.
  3. As to the 10 allegations against him in the information, he denied the same. He said, he did not rape PW1, PW2 and PW3, as alleged in counts no. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. He said, he did not attempt to rape PW4, as alleged in count no. 8. He said, he did not indecently assault PW2, PW3 and PW4, as alleged in counts no. 4, 6, 9 and 10. On oath, he said, all the complainants were lying against him. He said, they were not telling the truth. He said, he did not rape or attempt to rape or indecently assault the complainants, as alleged by the prosecution. He said, he did not preach Saint John, Chapter 4, verse 1 to 42, as alleged by the complainants. He said, he explained the above in the normal way it was done. He said, it was in the same way interpreted by Doctor Donal McAlraith (PW5) of the Pacific Regional Seminary and Pastor Manasa Tusulu (PW6) of World Harvest Centre. It was about the Samarian woman influencing the Samarian people to believe in Jesus and follow his way.
  4. He said, the allegation by the complainants was a family conspiracy against him. He said, the allegations were untrue. In his closing submissions, his lawyer argued, even if the complainants’ views were to be accepted, they allegedly consented to the sexual acts, and thus no offence was ever committed. Because of the above, the accused is asking you, as assessors and judges of fact, to find him not guilty as charged on all counts. That was the case for the defence.
  1. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

(a) Introduction:

  1. In analysing the evidence, please bear in mind the directions I gave you in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 hereof on the burden and standard of proof. In the acceptance and/or rejection of the evidence presented at the trial and your role as assessors, please bear in mind the directions I gave you in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 hereof. In analysing the evidence, we will first discuss the “Agreed Facts”, and its significance. Then, we will discuss the State’s case against the accused in its chronological order, that is, dealing first with the accused’s alleged offendings against complainant no. 1 (PW1) and complainant no. 3 (PW3) in the year 2005, that is, counts no. 1, 2, 6 and 7; then we will discuss the accused’s alleged offendings against complainant no. 2 (PW2) and complainant no. 4 (PW4) in the year 2006, that is counts no. 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10; and lastly, we will discuss the accused’s alleged offending against complainant no. 2 (PW2) in the year 2012, that is, count no. 5. Then, we will consider the defence’s case. Lastly, we will look at the need to consider all the evidence.

(b) The Agreed Facts:

  1. The parties submitted an “Agreed Facts”, dated 9 June 2017. A copy is with you. It had 8 paragraphs of “Agreed Facts”. The above facts are not disputed by the parties, thus you may treat the same as established facts, and that the prosecution had proven those facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The significance of the “Agreed Facts” was that it provided a background of the accused, and the setting of the allegations against him. In other words, it sets the scene for the allegations in the information in that, this was a case of a serious of sexual allegations by young female members of a prayer group against its leader, the accused.

(c) The State’s Case Against the Accused on the Rape, Attempted Rape and Indecent Assault Complaints by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4:

  1. The State’s case against the accused was based fundamentally on the direct verbal evidence of all the complainants. You had heard the details of their evidence in the courtroom, and you had assessed their demeanours and veracity in the courtroom, to determine their credibility. We will discuss their evidence in its chronological order, beginning with the year 2005, then 2006 and lastly 2012.
  2. In 2005, the prosecution alleged three rape and one indecent assault charges against the accused. These arose from complainant no. 1 (PW1) and complainant no. 3’s (PW3) complaints against the accused in counts no. 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the information. The actual dates are not specified, but the alleged incidents were said to have occurred between two mentioned dates in the information. This is not unusual in sexual complaints when alleged victims cannot recall the actual dates. It does not make the counts invalid. So, if you find an alleged incident happened within the mentioned dates, that would be proper and valid. Furthermore, when discussing PW1 and PW3’s complaints, please take on board the directions I gave you on the element of the offences as described in paragraphs 11 to 20 hereof.
  3. The first complaint against the accused was from PW1 in count no. 1. It allegedly occurred between 1 and 28 February 2005. According to PW1, she was in a prayer session with the accused in his bedroom, at Welagi Taveuni. Others were also in the bedroom. PW1 said, after a while, the accused sent the others out of the bedroom and she was alone with him. PW1 was 18 years old at the time. The accused was 43 years old at the time. PW1 said, the accused later partly inserted his penis into her vagina in the bedroom. PW1 said, it was painful. However, she said, she accepted it because of the accused’s biblical teaching that she ought to be cleansed because she was a temple of God (count no. 1).
  4. PW1’s second complaint against the accused was in count no. 2. It allegedly occurred between 1 August and 31 November 2005. According to PW1, she was at a prayer session at Daliga’s house in Nadera Nasinu. Later the accused asked PW1 to massage him. She did massage him. PW1 said, the accused reminded her the cleansing process they did in count no. 1 had to be completed by him fully penetrating her vagina with his penis. The two were alone in the accused’s bedroom. PW1 said, the accused later penetrated her vagina with his penis and ejaculated therein. PW1 said, she accepted the same on the accused’s biblical teaching that she had to be cleansed. She was a temple of God.
  5. The third and fourth complaints against the accused in 2005 was from complainant no. 3 (PW3) in count no. 6 and 7. It allegedly occurred between 1 November to 31 December 2005. PW3 was 19 years old at the time. The accused was 43 years old. PW3 said, she was attending a prayer session at Daliga’s house in Nadera. The accused was conducting the service. After the service, she was called into the accused’s bedroom. Two ladies were also in the room praying. PW3 said, the accused later inserted two of his fingers into her vagina and also fondled her breast (count no. 6). PW3 said, the accused later told her she had to be redeemed and the two had to have sex. PW3 said, he later inserted his penis into her vagina and ejaculated therein. PW3 said, she agreed to the above because of the accused’s biblical teaching that she had to be cleansed. According to the teaching, she had to be cleansed as she was a temple of God (count no. 7).
  6. In 2006, there were five complaints against the accused from complainant no. 1 (PW1), complainant no. 2 (PW2) and complainant no. 4 (PW4). In February 2006, PW4 made 3 complaints against the accused in counts no. 8, 9 and 10. The alleged incidents were said to occur between 1 and 28 February 2006. PW4 was 20 years old at the time. The accused was 44 years old at the time. PW4 said, she was attending a prayer session at Daliga’s house in Nadera. PW4 said, the accused was part of the prayer session. PW4 said, a while later she was requested to go into the accused’s bedroom to be prayed over. PW4 said, in the bedroom the accused told her to take off her clothes. PW4 said, she was fully naked. PW4 said, the accused later told her to lie on the bed. PW4 said, he later penetrated her vagina with his finger (count no. 10). PW4 said, he kissed her on the lips (count no. 9). PW4 said, he laid ontop of her, and he rubbed his penis on her vagina back and forth. PW4 said, he later ejaculated into her vagina (count no. 8). PW4 said, she agreed to the above because of his biblical teaching and that she would be cleansed as she was a temple of God.
  7. Complainant no. 2 (PW2) next made a complaint against the accused in count no. 4. The alleged incident occurred between 1 January and 31 July 2006. PW2 was 22 years old at the time and the accused was 44 years old. PW2 said, she went to Daliga’s house at Nadera with others for the redeeming process. PW2 said, she was called into the accused’s bedroom. PW2 said, the accused told her to take off her clothes. PW2 said, she took off her clothes. PW2 said, the accused told her she had to be redeemed and cleansed and she had to lie on the bed face up. PW2 said, the accused took off his sulu, laid ontop of her, kissed her neck and breast, suck her nipples and later sucked her vagina. PW2 said, he tried to insert his penis into her vagina, but did not succeed. PW2 said, after a while, he told her to get dressed. PW2 said, he later went to the sitting room. PW2 said, she agreed to the above because of the accused’s biblical teaching and that she needed to be cleansed, as she was a temple of God.
  8. The last complaint in 2006 against the accused was from complainant no. 1 (PW1) in count no. 3. The alleged incident occurred between 1 July to 31 December 2006. PW1 said, she was at Welagi, Taveuni. PW1 said, she had given birth to a child fathered by the accused. PW1 said, the accused shared a bedroom with his wife, while she shared a bedroom with her child. Her bedroom was near to the accused’s bedroom. PW1 said, the accused preached to her about Abraham in the bible. PW1 said, the accused told her Abraham had two wives, so he will also have two wives. PW1 said, accused told her, she would be his second wife and whenever he wanted sex, she was to give it to him. PW1 was 19 years old at the time, while the accused was 44 years old. PW1 said, the accused had sex with her about 5 times. PW1 said, she agreed to the above because of his biblical teaching and the need for her to be cleansed, as she was a temple of God.
  9. The last complaint against the accused was from complainant no. 2 (PW2) in count no. 5. The alleged incident occurred between 1 to 31 July 2012. PW2 was 28 years old at the time, and the accused was 50 years old. PW2 said, she went to Vunidawa Settlement for their annual celebration. The settlement was full of its members. PW2 said she slept in the girl’s dormitory, which was next to the accused’s bedroom and office. PW2 said, on a night after 10pm, the accused asked her to massage him. PW2 said, she got a bottle of oil and massage the accused’s knees to his feet. PW2 said, his wife was sleeping next to him. PW2 said, the accused later asked her to hug him. PW2 said, she did so, and later he kissed her on the lips. PW2 said, he later parted her underwear and inserted two fingers into her vagina for 1 minute. PW2 said, she did not consent to him doing the above. PW2 said, she was too scared to complain to anyone, because people respected him. PW2 said, towards the end of 2012, she left the Ministry.
  10. It was the prosecution’s case that all complainants consented to the sexual acts because the accused misused and misinterpreted the bible to them to say that he had to have sexual intercourse with them to cleanse them spiritually. The complainants said the accused preached to them that women were prostitutes, and also temples of God. They had to be cleansed by him penetrating their vaginas with his penis, and he ejaculating therein, and his semen was the water of life, which would purify them as temple of God. The complainants said he was doing so as the man of God. The prosecution argued that the accused’s sermons and teachings were nothing but a deception to the girls, to enables him to have sexual intercourse and contacts with them. The prosecution argued, if they ever consented, the consents were, in law, because of the deceptions, not consent in law.
  11. If you accept the complainants’ evidence as credible, you are entitled to find the accused guilty as charged on all counts. If you do not accept their evidence as credible, you are entitled to find the accused not guilty as charged on all counts. It is a matter entirely for you.

(d) The Accused’s Case:

  1. On oath, the accused denied the complainants’ allegations against him. He said, he did not rape or attempted to rape or indecently assaulted them. He denied the complainants’ version of events, as to how he preached on the bible. He said, he never did what the complainants alleged against him. You have heard the details of his evidence in the courtroom, and I don’t wish to bore you with the details. If you find the accused’s sworn denials credible and you accept them, then you will have to find him not guilty as charged on all counts. It is matter entirely for you.

(e) The Need to Consider All the Evidence:

  1. The prosecution call a total of 6 witnesses, that is, the four complainants, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, Doctor Donal McAlraith (PW5) and Pastor Manasa Tusulu (PW6). They tendered a bible as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1. The defence called seven witnesses, that is, the accused (DW1), Selai Lewenikoro (DW2), Kelera Adi (DW3), Losalini Nalawa (DW4), Inoke Lewenikoro (DW5), Aqela Camari (DW6) and Sesinieli Marama (DW7). The defence tendered Vosabula’s birth certificate as Defence Exhibit no. 1. You are to consider all the above evidences together, and compare and analyse them. If I didn’t mention any piece of evidence that you consider important, please take it on board and consider the same in your deliberation. As assessors and judges of fact, you are entitled to accept the whole or part of a witnesses’ evidence you consider credible, and you are also entitled to reject the whole or part of a witness’s evidence you consider not credible. You are the judges of fact.
  1. SUMMARY
  1. Remember, the burden to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution throughout the trial, and it never shifts to the accused, at any stage of the trial. The accused is not required to prove his innocence, or prove anything at all. In fact, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If you accept the prosecution’s version of events, and you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt so that you are sure of the accused’s guilt, you must find him guilty as charged. If you do not accept the prosecution’s version of events, and you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt so that you are not sure of the accused’s guilt, you must find him not guilty as charged.
  2. Your possible opinions are as follows:
  3. You may now retire to deliberate on the case, and once you’ve reached your decisions, you may inform our clerks, so that we could reconvene, to receive the same.

Salesi Temo
JUDGE


Solicitor for State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.
Solicitor for Accused : S. Valenitabua, Barrister and Solicitor, Suva.

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2017/443.html