Dresuna v State [2008] FJSC 14; CAV0023.2007S (23 July 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.CAV0023 OF 2007S
(Fiji Court of Appeal No.AAU0053 of 2004S)

BETWEEN:

JOJI DRESUNA
Petitioner

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram : The Hon. Justice Keith Mason, Judge of the Supreme Court
The Hon. Justice Kenneth Handley, Judge of the Supreme Court
The Hon. Justice Ronald Sackville, Judge of the Supreme Court

Hearing : Tuesday, 22 July 2008, Suva

Counsel : Petitioner in Person
Ms. A. Prasad for the Respondent

Date of Judgment: Wednesday, 23 July 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 14 July 2006. The Court of Appeal refused the petitioner leave to appeal against his conviction on one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one count of robbery with violence. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against his sentence of a total of 9 years imprisonment.

[2] The petitioner was convicted after a trial in the High Court at Lautoka (Connors J and assessors). The only substantial evidence against the petitioner was a confession made by him in a police interview. The confession was made the day after the petitioner was apprehended by the police.

[3] The petitioner was represented by counsel at the trial and challenged the admissibility of the confession. The petitioner’s case was that he had been severely assaulted by the police and, in fear of further assault, had confessed his involvement in a bank robbery which had taken place on 23 May 2002. It was common ground that the petitioner had sustained injuries on the day of his apprehension, but the police maintained that these injuries had been caused as the result of the petitioner fleeing from the police.

[4] The trial Judge conducted a voir dire prior to the commencement of the trial to determine whether the confession was admissible. Evidence was given on the voir dire by four police officers and by the petitioner and his brother.

[5] The trial Judge gave detailed reasons on 9 September 2004 for admitting the confession into evidence. He was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the caution interview, at which the confession was made, was conducted voluntarily in circumstances of fairness to the accused. His Lordship rejected the petitioner’s version of events leading to the caution interview.

[6] The Court of Appeal pointed out that the question on the voir dire was purely a question of fact to be answered after a proper valuation of the evidence. There had been no suggestion that the trial Judge had misdirected himself and there was no other basis for interfering with the decision to admit the confession into evidence. Nor did the Court of Appeal see any basis for challenging the petitioner’s conviction. The Court considered that the sentence of 9 years imprisonment was appropriate for an armed robbery at a bank, in the course of which staff and customers were threatened and some $270,000 in cash was stolen, the bulk of which was never recovered.

[7] The Court of Appeal correctly identified the issues before the trial Judge and the assessors as questions of fact to be decided on the evidence. In this Court, as in the Court of Appeal, there has been no suggestion of misdirection that the trial, either on the voir dire or to the assessors. No basis has been shown for challenging the lawfulness of the sentence of imprisonment.

[8] For these reasons, the petition for special leave to appeal must be dismissed.

Hon. Justice Keith Mason
Judge of the Supreme Court

Hon. Justice Kenneth Handley
Judge of the Supreme Court

Hon. Justice Ronald Sackville
Judge of the Supreme Court

Solicitors:
Petitioner in Person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Suva, for the Respondent