Prasad v Disaurara [1983] FJLawRp 29; [1983] 29 FLR 78 (16 September 1983)

[1983] 29 FLR 78

SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

RAVIND PRASAD

v

NANIETA DISAURARA

[SUPREME COURT—Kermode J.—16 September 1983]

H. M. Patel with M. Khan for the Appellant
Respondent in person

Affiliation- complainant's evidence accepted—lies by alleged father can provide corroboration in the sense of disclosing a guilty mind.

Appeal against a decision given in the Magte’s Court at Suva thva that the appellant was the father of a bastard child born to the respondent on 7 March 1981.

Respondent stated she had met appellant in 1975 - went out with him thereafter until in 1980 they reached a stage of intimacy. Between May and June 1980 they had intercourse on about five occasions. In June she became aware she was pregnant. The defendant then obtained three pills for her which she did not use. On 3 November the appellant gave her $270 to purchase clothes for the child, and later after the birth, for milk. She used to telephone him until he told her not to telephone again.

The appellant admitted having had sexual intercourse with her but did not see her after November 1979. He denied giving her money.

The Magistrate believed the respondent. He did not believe the appellant. He did not accept the appellant had not seen her after November 1979.

The Magistrate was aware of the necessity for corroboration. He considered the denial of any association subsequent to 1979 was sufficient to corroborate her story.

Held: The learned Maate accepted pted the respondent’s evidence. He was satisfied by the evidence of an independent witness that the defendant had lied when he alleged there een no association with respondent after November 1979. On . On the evidence the Magistrate was correct in accepting that the defendant’s denials were untrue and that finding did amount to corroboration of the respondent’s story.

Appeal dismissed.

Case referred to:

Corfield v. Hodgson (1966) 2 All E.R. p.205KERMODE, Mr Justice.

JUDGMENT

On the 3rd December, 1989, the appellant was found by the Magistrate's Court, Suvabe the putative father of a bastard child born to the resporespondent on the 7th day of March, 1981.

The Magistrate believed the evidence of the respondent and did not believe the appellant's denials of association and intimacy in May and June of 1980. He says in his judgment that the complainant gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and without equivocation. He said further she was convincing and the defendant was not.

The Magistrate was conscious of the fact that the respondent's story required corroboration. He found that corroboration in the defendant's admission of sexual intimacy with the complainant prior to the relevant time that is when the child could have been conceived and in his denials of any association subsequent to November 1979 which the Magistrate did not accept.

The Magistrate stated that the appellant's denials reflected his wish to conceal facts which though in themselves would not form corroboration showed that there was some matter of which he was ashamed or the admission of which he conceived would throw suspicion on him and that this tended to corroborate the complainant's story.

The appellant challenges the finding of the learned Magistrate on several grounds but the only ground of any substance is the appellant's submission that the learned Magistrate erred in finding that there was corroboration of the respondent's evidence.

It was established that the complainant and defendant had a long-term association which had reached the stage where the parties were sexually intimate. The complainant stated, that although she had met the defendant in 1975, and had been out with him from that year onwards, it was not until 1980 that they became sexually intimate. She stated that between May and June 1980 she and the defendant had sexual intercourse on about five occasions and on the 8th June when she missed her period she realised she was pregnant. She says she informed the defendant and he went to a doctor and obtained three pills for which she did not use. She says that on the 3rd November, 1980, the defendant gave her $270 in cash to purchase clothes for the child.

After the birth of the child in Suva she phoned the defendant and he gave her $5 to buy milk for the child. She rang him about every fortnight thereafter until he told her not to ring again. She then instituted Court proceedings against him.

The defendant admitted knowing the complainant since early in 1975 and he admitted having sexual intercourse with the complainant but his case was that he did not sec her again after November 1979. He denied giving her any money or going to her house.

The complainant called her sister as a witness and she gave evidence, which the Magistrate accepted, that the complainant would call at the house of the complainant to pick her up at night. She also said that on one occasion she was with the complainant when she visited the respondent where he worked in Walu Bay during 1980. The Magistrate accepted her evidence that the defendant was associating with the complainant in 1980 until shortly before Christmas of that year.

The defendant denied any association with the complainant since November 1979 and the Magistrate accepted the evidence of the complainant and her sister and he did not accept the defendant's denial of any association subsequent to November, 1979, which he held was proved to be untrue.

The learned Magistrate did not quote any authority for his finding that the defendant's denial of any association subsequent to November 1979 was sufficient to corroborate the complainant's story.

He may have had in mind the case of Corfield v. Hodgi> #160;(1966) 2 All E.R. p. 205. In that case the appellant in examination in chief denied that, as was alleged by the resnt, he had ever taken her home from a dance but in cross examination he had admitted that hhat he had done so on two occasions, adding after pause that in each occasion they had been accompanied by his sister.

The Justices did not believe that his sister had been with him and found that the child was the appellant's child being of the opinion that the respondent's evidence was corroborated in a material particular as required by section 4(2) of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 by his own evidence. It was held that a lie told in those circumstances might be of a character which was capable of being corroboration in the sense that it disclosed a guilty mind and the Justices were justified in their conclusion.

There is a similarity to that case in the instant case. The learned Magistrate was satisfied by the evidence of an independent witness that the defendant had lied when he alleged that there had been no association with the complainant after November 1979.

On the evidence before me the Magistrate was in my view correct in finding that the defendant's denials were not true and that that finding did amount to corroboration of the complainant's story which the Magistrate accepted as true.

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.