IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 41of 2016

STATE

v

MOHAMMED RASHEED

Counsels:	Ms. A. Vavadakua for the State
		Mr. A. Sen for the Accused

Dates of Hearing:  23, 24 July 2018
Date of Ruling: 	24 July 2018

RULING
(VOIRE DIRE)

1.	The State seeks to adduce into evidence a record of interview 	made under caution with the accused on the 19th, 20th and 21st 	June 2015 at the Labasa Police Station.

2.	The accused by his counsel objects to the production of same 	on the grounds that it was obtained as a result of assaults at 	the hands of Police and threat of further assault if he did not co-	operate. 

3.	I am aware of the test to apply to such application in that I 	must find that the interview was conducted without fear or 	inducements offered; in a fair manner without oppression and 	in accordance with the accused’s constitutional rights.

4.	Were I to find that there was an assault on the accused then 	that would well colour his willingness to answer the questions 	in the interview and the whole record would be inadmissible.

5.	The evidence for the State was adduced by 6 Police witnesses 	who spoke to the arrest of the accused at his home and of his 	treatment at the Labasa Police Station where he was processed 	and interviewed. 

6.	The accused was arrested at his home in Tabia in the afternoon 	of the 19th June 2015. It was said that he was told the reasons 	for the arrest and he willingly went with the Police back to the 	station for further enquiries. At the station he was processed 	and taken to the Crime Office to be interviewed that afternoon 	and for the two days thereafter. 

7.	On the second day, he was taken to various places where he 	pointed out locations where sexual intercourse had taken place. 

8.	The Police all denied that the accused was ever assaulted; they 	denied inappropriate treatment of the accused and they told the 	Court that he was afforded all of his Constitutional rights and 	treated fairly.

9.	The accused gave evidence on this issue. He said that on arrest 	he co-operated with the Police but on the journey to the Labasa 	Police station, he was sworn at by the Officer who had arrested 	him. At the beginning of the interview he was told if he didn’t 	“say the right things”, he would be assaulted. It was Ramadan 	and he was fasting. On the second day the interviewing officer 	punched him in the ribs and was told if he did not admit the 	offence he would be made to do 100 push-ups. He was in fact 	made to do that, but he could only manage 50. He was made to 	feel bad. He was paining in his legs and ribs. He wasn’t allowed 	to see a lawyer or religious counselor, although he did admit to 	the Court that he didn’t ask to see either. 

10.	He told the Court that the answers written in the record are not 	true. He told those lies because of threats made to him and 	because of the assault.

Analysis

11.	The Police gave confident and consistent evidence on which the 	Court relies. I did not believe the accused when he said he lied 	in the interview because of threats or fear of assault. The record 	shows the frank answers of a suspect freely admitting to the 	sexual activity he was accused of . Were he telling lies as he 	claimed, he would not have gone into the great detail of the 	sexual activity recorded in the statement.

12.	The Court has no hesitation in finding that the State has proved 	beyond reasonable doubt that the interview was conducted 	fairly and with the willing participation of the accused. 

13.	The record may be adduced into evidence in the trial on the 	general issue.

	    P.K. Madigan
         Judge

At Labasa
24 July 2018