Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Tonga |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY
NO.CR.57/00
REX
-v-
'ALAISIA MATANGI
BEFORE THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE WARD
Counsel: Miss S Tupou for prosecution
Mr S Fifita for accused
Date of Trial: 21 August 2000
Date of Ruling: 21 August 2000
RULING
Mr Fifita for the accused submits at the end of a trial within a trial that the statements made by the accused should not be admitted on two grounds:
In this case, the accused was 13 years old at the time of the arrest. The officer told how he asked him if he wanted to be taken in front of a magistrate and was told by the accused that he did not and he wanted to go to the police station so his statement could be recorded. At the police station he was told of his right to have a lawyer, parent or friend present and the accused said they should continue.
I do not accept there is any right for a person arrested to waive the requirements of section 22 of the Police Act. It is matter for the officer alone and he should not have offered such a choice. That would apply to any person arrested but to consider that it is an appropriate decision on such matters for a thirteen years old defies belief.
The officer agreed that he knew the accused had been living at home with his mother until shortly after the alleged offence about 6 weeks previously but had then been told by the mother that the accused did not live there anymore. The accused had been arrested that day very close to his home but the officer had again been told that he no longer lived there. Whether or not that was true, the fact remains that the officer clearly knew where the mother lived. Had he wanted to invite her to the interview, he knew exactly where she lived and that she had been at home at least a short time before. It would have been very easy to obtain her attendance and had he wanted to ensure the interview was fair, I would have expected to hear evidence from the officer that he had at least tried. However, the contrary was the case. He simply stated he did not do so and appeared to consider that was sufficient. It was not.
On that ground alone I do not consider the statements in this case were taken fairly and I shall exclude them.
NUKU'ALOFA: 21 August 2000.
CHIEF JUSTICE
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/to/cases/TOSC/2000/31.html