IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 2950 of 2001

STATE

V

SEMITI FIFITA

BEFORE M/S L LAVETI
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

8TH AUGUST 2003:

RULING ON SUBMISSION OF NO CASE TO ANSWER

The charge against the accused is one of criminal trespass contrary to Section 192 (1) of the Penal Code Cap 17. The particulars of offence allege that on the 6th day of September 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, the accused SEMITI FIFITA (B-1) unlawfully entered the Suva Holiday Inn with intent to annoy DANIEL BUTCHER, a person lawfully in possession of the said property.

There had been 4 other previous hearing fixtures and thus my ruling against the prosecution in their application for adjournment. The prosecution witness Daniel Butcher was not available and had not been summoned although I had endorsed the relevant summons some 3 months to the hearing date. As such the prosecution proceeded with their case without the complainant.

There were 4 State witnesses, Salesh Prasad (PW1) is the front office manager of the Holiday Inn. On the 6/9/01, he was on duty at the hotel when the accused was escorted by the police leaving the premises. The security officer then reported to him that the accused had been found upstairs in a restricted area trying to open a guest’s room. The security then handed the accused to the police who subsequently lay charges. He identified the man found at the premises as the accused in the box.

In cross-examination, PW1 clarified that they do not normally restrict movement into the hotel. If a person wish to see a guest and has the guest’s room number, then the visitor could go straight to see the guest. Furthermore, he stated that it was not his duty to ask anyone about their presence at the hotel.

ELESIO KANASALUSALU (PW2) was the security officer who apprehended the accused. He stated that whilst on patrol, he saw the accused on the first floor of the hotel twisting the doorknob to room 223. He stated that he questioned the accused and told him that he was in a prohibited area. He then escorted him downstairs and handed him over to the police.

PW2 was vigorously cross-examined by the defence. He stated that though the accused did not break any law or appear to have done anything unlawful, PW2 was still suspicious of his behaviour because of his whereabouts. He questioned the accused and not being satisfied with his responses, escorted him downstairs.

However, PW2 conceded that there was no sign or visual directive indicating that certain areas of the hotel was restricted. He admitted that without a sign to the contrary, any person could enter a restricted zone. He stated that he told the accused why he was apprehending him but did not warn him first. He was adamant that it was part of his duties to ensure security and that was what he was doing on that day.

PC1125 Jitoko (PW3) is the investigating officer who interviewed the accused. He tendered the caution interview which confirmed that the accused was unaware that his presence at the hotel on the date amounted to trespass. The accused gave a similar excuse when charged by Sgt. Rovono (PW4).

At the close of the prosecution case, the defence made a submission of no case to answer. The test at this stage of trial is one of prima facie case. The question to be answer is whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant the accused to be put to his defence?

I believe not for the following reasons:

1)	The evidence does not support the charge.

2)	The complainant is not present to substantiate the allegation.

3)	The 2 civilian witnesses confirm that there was no clear signs indicating restricted zones.

4)	Any ordinary person entering the hotel premises may make the same mistake as the accused did due to lack of proper signs.

5)	PW2 had the option of warning the accused but did not.

There being no elements of the charge met, I uphold the submission.

In exercise of my powers under Section 215 of the CPC, I acquit the accused.
28 days to appeal. 

(Sgd)	Laisa Laveti
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE