Deo v Reginam [1984] FijiLawRp 4; [1984] 30 FLR 31 (24 November 1984)

[1984] 30 FLR 31

COURT OF APPEAL OF FIJI

Criminal Jurisdiction

CHANDAR DEO
RAM CHANDAR
SHIU LAL

v

REGINAM

Speight V.P., Mishra J.A, Casey J.A.

24 November 1984

Criminal Law – Murder − alleged confession − standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt − Court of Appeal unable to differ from Assessors properly instructed.

A. Ali for the 1st Appellant
V Maharaj for the 2nd Appellant
A. K Singh for the 3rd Appellant
A. H. C. T Gates for the Respondent

Appeal against convictions for murder of three appellants acting in concert.

The details of the crime were set out by Mishra J. A. who delivered the judgment of the court. It is not necessary to discuss them here.

The evidence for the prosecution was almost entirely made up of alleged confessions of each of the three accused.

These confessions were the subject of a voir dire hearing in which each of the accused claimed (paraphrased) they had been subjected to violence to compel them to sign the confessions; that they had not said what was attributed to them in these documents and that in effect they would not have signed except they had been forced to do so.

Evidence was also given that they had or had had in their possession gold sovereigns which the deceased had worn as a necklace. The appellants said the evidence as to the sovereigns was fabricated.

This report is intended to refer mainly to matters of complaint as to the confessions. Referring to the voir dire examination which the learned trial judge resolved in favour of the prosecution evidence, Mishra J. apparently noted that the Court had not given a lengthy ruling on the facts as to the interrogation. Mishra J. A. said:

"The sole issue was whether, having heard the appellants, the Judge was still satisfied that the police officers, who were the same in each case had told the truth. The brief ruling quite understandably was confined to that question.

This Court approved of such a course in Ganga Ram v. R (46 of 1983) where it said:

"Accordingly we wish to say that it has always been thought desirable that findings adverse to an accused person, if they must be pronounced during the course of a trial, should be as economically worded as possible." We are satisfied that the Judge's reluctance at this early stage to go into the details of evidence, which he later recalled in detail in his summing-up was deliberate and careful."