State v Leudi [2006] FJMC 1; Criminal Case No 7 of 2005 (20 January 2006)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 7 of 2005

STATE

V

JONE LEUDI

Prosecution: Sgt. Wilson
Defence: Mr J. Sloan

JUDGMENT

The accused has been charged with two counts namely Robbery and Resisting Arrest. Particulars are under count 1 that on 31st December 2004 he robbed Hari Lal Anthony of $32 cash. He also resisted arrest by P.C Filise on the same date.

The prosecution facts is that the accused on 31st December 2004 sat in the front seat of the taxi near village 6 cinemas. He asked driver to take him to flagstaff. The driver smelt liquor on him and refused. On insistence by accused, he agreed to take him. Before Denison Road the accused asked to be taken to Domain. The driver refused. At junction of Denison Road the accused swerved the steering of the vehicle which spinned out of control and stopped colliding into a concrete wall on side of road.

The accused took out $32 from the front pocket of the driver. They held each other in the car when a police patrol car and some drivers were alerted. They arrived and arrested the accused to be taken to CPS for search and investigation. He resisted and had to be overpowered by request for additional men by the police car.

The accused was locked in cell. Taken to hospital to attend to his jaw and swollen face on Sunday. He appeared in court on 4/1/05.

The accused gave sworn evidence. He denied the robbery or resisting arrest. He admitted having had 3 to 4 large bottles of beer. He said he had $34 on him which was his saving after his wage of $110 he received on 31/12/04. He said he was assaulted and his tooth was broken.

The accused didn’t object to his caution interview and admitted it was voluntarily given to police after few days of arrest.

I have considered whole of evidence. I find the complainant’s evidence of credence. He won’t have swerved his vehicle and collided to a wall if there was nothing done to his steering. Also the police witness only arrived at scene after hearing calls for help from the driver. The police who first arrived at scene (PW2) Filise corroborated the complainant’s call and the fact that the accused was under influence. Also he tried to resist arrest.

There is also the complaint of $32 stolen and upon search by police $34 was found on the accused. The circumstantial evidence points more towards the irresistible conclusion that the accused did rob the driver of $32 and he resisted when being arrested by the police.

The learned defence counsel has submitted that the accused didn’t run from scene and asked for his wallet back when released at station, so he was innocent.

However, the facts show he had no chance to escape since the police patrol was nearby and had come for assistance. Despite, that the accused was resisting to cooperate.

I have also considered some discrepancies in evidence of witnesses but it was of minor nature and does not exonerate a finding of guilt on the part of accused person.

I find the prosecution has proved its charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused is found guilty on both counts as charged.

Dated this 20th day of January 2006.

Ajmal G. Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE