Wati v Reginam [1979] FJSC 60; Criminal Appeal 64 of 1979 (23 October 1979)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION)
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1979

BETWEEN

KANTA WATI alias SAVITA DEVI
d/o Krishna
(Appellant)

AND

REGINAM
(Respondent)

Mr. S. Verma for Mr. R. Shankar, Counsel for the appellant
Mr. D. Williams, Counsel for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant was charged with the offence of fraudulent conversion on which charge she was convicted and fined. In giving evidence in that case she swore that she had not been in New Zealand between June and December 1977. It is not of course unusual for persons charged with criminal Offences to lie on oath during their trial, but it is usually difficult to produce direct evidence proving the untruths.

In this case the Crown was able to produce evidence of people who had seen the appellant in New Zealand and also to prove that the appellant had in fact been declared a prohibited immigrant by the New Zealand immigration authorities, having been arrested and convicted of overstaying in the country under a false identity, and having been deported. There was therefore clear unspeechable evidence that the appellant had lied under oath, and to make matters worse the appellant had managed to involve others in support of her perjured evidence, and had also produced what must have been forged letters.

As a result she was charged with the offence of perjury, to which she pleaded guilty. On her conviction she was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, and it is against this sentence that she now appeals. For the record it should be pointed out that after spending 2 weeks in custody the appellant has been allowed out on extra mural labour, which will enable her to live at home and to spend most of the day with her children.

Before this Court the appellant's counsel has pleaded for a more lenient sentence but he had not forwarded any facts that were not before the magistrate who convicted and sentenced her. In fact the magistrate had before him in addition the evidence of Satya Mudaliar Nathaniel a clergyman who spoke in mitigation.

In passing sentence the magistrate said

"There are some offences which strike at the very root of justice. Corruption is one and perjury is another. While a person is entitled to defend himself as well as he is able, the whole administration of justice and the rule of law requires the truth to be told. No one can come to Court and lie with impunity. This must be widely known.

This lady is fortunate in having Mr. Shankar to represent her. He has said everything that could possibly be said on her behalf and I have given anxious consideration to everything he has said. I take into account her plea of guilty today and accept she was shown remorse."

The magistrate has properly and judiciously exercised his discretion with regard to sentence, and it is not for this court to impose its own discretion unless the magistrate has erred or misdirected himself - which in this case he has not.

The appellant showed a wilful contempt of the Court in her efforts to persuade it to accept her perjured evidence. Perhaps she was unlucky that the Crown has been able so conclusively to demonstrate her falsity, but that was a risk she must have accepted and she can hardly complain at the result. The sentence is not excessive and the appeal is dismissed.

(G.O.L. Dyke)
JUDGE

Lautoka,
23rd October, 1979.