State v Naureure [2019] FJHC 206; HAC430.2016S (13 March 2019)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 430 OF 2016S

STATE
Vs

1. ASESELA NAUREURE
2. MOAPE ROKORAICEBE
   

Counsels : Mr. T. Tuenuku for State
Ms. L. Manulevu for Accused No. 1
Ms. L. Manulevu for Accused No. 2

Hearings : 7, 8, 11 and 12 March, 2019
Summing Up : 13 March 2019
Judgment : 13 March 2019
_____________________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. The three assessors had returned with a unanimous opinion finding Accuseds No. 1 and 2 guilty of count no. 1, 2 and 3.
   
2. Obviously, the assessors had accepted the prosecution’s version of events. It also meant, they had accepted the prosecution’s witnesses’ evidence.
   
3. The above also meant they had rejected Accused No. 1’s evidence and version of events. It also meant they had rejected Accused No. 1’s witness DW2’s evidence.
   
4. I have reviewed the evidence called in the trial and I had directed myself in accordance with the summing up I gave the assessors today.
   
5. The assessors’ view was not perverse. It was open to them to reach such conclusion on the evidence.
   
6. Assessors are there to assist the trial judge come to a decision on the guilt or otherwise of the two accuseds. Their opinion represent the public’s view and it must be treated with respect.
   
7. Like the assessors, I find all the prosecution’s witnesses’ evidence credible. As against Accused No. 1, I accept Mr. Kumar’s (PW1) identification evidence against Accused No.1. I accept that he observed Accused No. 1’s face for more than two hours from Gordon Street Suva to Rakiraki, where he became unconscious, as a result of an accident. The distance between him and Accused No. 1 were one to two footsteps away. It was morning daylight. He could not forget Accused No. 1’s face given what he did to him that day.
   
8. I find, as a result of Mr. Kumar’s evidence, that Accused No. 1 offended against him, as alleged in count no. 1, 2 and 3 and I make the above my finding of fact.
   
9. As for Accused No. 2, I accept the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence against him, as outlined in my summing up. I accept the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7. In my view, Accused No. 2 assisted Accused no. 1 in offending against Mr. Kumar. On the principle of joint enterprise, I find both Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 guilty on count no. 1, 2 and 3.
   
10. Given the above, I entirely agree with the 3 assessor’s opinion and I find both Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 guilty as charged on count no. 1, 2 and 3. I convict them accordingly on those counts.
    

Salesi Temo

JUDGE

Solicitor for State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Nausori.

Solicitor for Accused No. 1 : Legal Aid Commission, Nausori.

Solicitor for Accused No. 2 : Legal Aid Commission, Nausori.