Prasad v Disaurara [1983] FijiLawRp 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 Magistrate’s Court at Suva 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 Magistrate accepted the respondent’s evidence. He was satisfied by the evidence of an independent witness that the defendant had lied when he alleged there had been no association with respondent after November 1979. 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.205

KERMODE, Mr Justice.

JUDGMENT

On the 3rd December, 1989, the appellant was found by the Magistrate's Court, Suva, to be the putative father of a bastard child born to the respondent 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.