PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Tonga

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Tonga >> 2008 >> [2008] TOSC 9

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Rex v Naisuku [2008] TOSC 9; CR 192-2007 (13 June 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY


CR 192 of 2007


R E X


-V-


VILIAMI HAISINI NAISUKU


BEFORE THE HON. JUSTICE SHUSTER


Counsel : Mrs. Fonua for the Crown and Ms. Tonga for the Defendant
Date of Extemporaneous Judgment : 12 June 2008


EXTEMPORANEOUS JUDGMENT


THE DEFENDANT


The Defendant is charged on an Indictment filed on the 3rd June 2008, He is charged with two offences alleging theft. He was arraigned on the 5th October 2007 before Justice Andrew, and pleaded Not Guilty to a single count indictment as is legal right. The Hearing took place on the 12th and 13th June 2008; the accused was convicted after trial.


Theft contrary to section 143 & 145 (b) of the Criminal Offences Act (Cap 18)


Theft contrary to section 143 & 145 (b) of the Criminal Offences Act (Cap 18)


THE PROSECUTION’s CASE.


The prosecution alleges the accused (with another person) stole a number of pigs as alleged in the indictment filed in court on the 3rd June2008. The prosecution says one of the stolen pigs’s, was cut up and eaten; the other pigs were seen by a prosecution witness kept penned within the accused’s allotment and in his boundaries. The pigs subsequently disappeared, and have not been recovered.


An allegation of theft was reported to the police, and an investigation commenced, culminating when the defendant was arrested, formally interviewed and committed by the Magistrate to stand his trial in the Supreme Court which took place on the 12th and 13th of June 2008. The defendant was found guilty after trial and an extemporaneous judgement given. There follows my full reasoning for finding the accused Guilty as charged on both counts.


THE DEFENCE CASE.


The accused as is his right under the law, denies the offences as alleged in the Indictment and puts the prosecution to strict proof. He gives his explanation of the events in a VCS to the police and this court. The VCS was not challenged by defence counsel. The accused gave evidence to in court his evidence is accorded the same respect and consideration as any other parties. The accused did not call any witnesses on his behalf as is his right.


THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF THEFT


To find the Accused Guilty of an offence of theft, under section 143 and 145 (b) of the Criminal Offences Act (Cap 18) the prosecution must prove each of the essential elements of the offence of theft.


In layman’s terms and in a nutshell the essential elements are:-


LEADING CASES AND POLICY.


In considering this my judgment I have considered and applied the following leading cases widely known throughout the Commonwealth. These cases are routinely applied in common law jurisdictions for offences; or allegations involving theft, or cases involving dishonesty. They can be applied and accepted here in Tonga.


THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF


Certification: As this is a trial before a Judge sitting alone; I certify I have directed myself in accordance with the Law on the Burden and Standard of Proof in a criminal case. I have directed myself of the need to consider the evidence in respect of each charge and for the defendant separately. Where appropriate I have given the Accused the benefit of any doubt. The prosecution brings this case, they must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt so that I am sure he committed the offences. The defendant does not have to prove anything; because he is innocent until he is proven guilty.


VOLUNTARY CAUTION STATEMENT


I am also required (under modern law) to consider a defendants voluntary caution statement[s], and also his charge statements as to whether they are voluntary; or not, in the true sense of the word. I find as a fact upon hearing the evidence that the confession Exhibits I, is voluntary in the true sense of the word; as is the charge statement Exhibit 2. These documents were never challenged by the Defense


PROSECUTION CASE


I heard a total of 4 prosecution witnesses who testified they knew the accused and had dealings with him concerning this particular case and the defendant himself gave sworn evidence to the court.


The defendant gave evidence after he initially said he did not wish to go into the witness box and after his rights were explained to him by the court. The accused’s evidence follows his account in his VCS and in his charge statement which has been translated and is in evidence by consent.


THE DEFENCE CLOSING ADDRESS


The accused is charged with two counts of theft. The Crown has failed to prove dishonesty. The first witness said he found the pigs in his hose. He said they were gone. No one saw the accused steal or take them from his fence. PW1 also sent his son to search for the stolen pigs. PW2 reported back the pigs were at my client’s house inside the fence. But, Mr. Hamani GUTTENBEIL did not lodge any complaint, he did noting. As a reasonable man he would go straight to the man and demand the pigs, and if the man did not return the pigs he would o straight to the police and lodges a complaint and also asks the police for assistance. Mr. Guttenbeil was aware where the pigs were kept and in evidence on oath he stated my client stole the pigs and sold them, and he did nothing to report it to the police. In my clients brief of evidence he did not say he sold the pigs on. If you want your rights you will tell everything to the police because you want truth and justice and all the relevant information you will tell the police. You will tell all to the investigator and this did not happen. PW2 said he was threatened when he went and asked about the stolen piglets. PW2 also said he was scared my client might kill him. PW2 said they went to the police station to lodge a complaint, but did not lodge a complaint about assaulting or threatening. The witness statement is unreliable. If PW2 said he was seeing the piglets and was assaulted that is a good claim to lodge against my client. But they did not lodge any complain. In the proof of evidence they did not tell them of the assault or the seeing of the piglets. PW2 said he would do anything just to support his father Hamani because it was his future. In the proof of evidence he did not explain to police but he was explaining in court. If he explained to the police then they might also explore the assaulting. The other witness PW3 the Town Officer in his evidence he said there was no complaint about his lost or stolen pigs. From the evidence the Crown has failed to prove there was dishonesty. The second element there was no intention to permanently deprive the owner. Hamani and his son said they took the pig back to their home. PW2 said he went again to search for the stolen pigs he then went again to my clients allotment and saw the pigs and then he went back home to seek assistance from his father and their two friends. They went to bring back the black sow pig caught in the trap and my client fare-welled them. Hamani confirmed the son saw the black pig in the trap and it was brought back from the trap, this from the witnesses they took back the black sow pig to their home. There was no intention to deprive the owner of the pigs because the pig was caught at the trap and was returned back to Hamani. PW1 also stated on oath whether he found any of his stolen pigs and he said yes. The black sow pig was caught in the trap on the allotment, In cross-examination he stated the black sow was taken back, but the rest of the pigs were not found. The crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the element of intention to permanently deprive the owner. The pig was returned and taken home my client did not permanently deprive them of the pigs. My client wanted it investigated. It was the black pig where the police questioned my client he explained everything. He said he saw the trapped pig and went to the village, and when he came back he saw that the pig had died. He cut it up and distributed it. It seems the pig was a different pig because Hamani had taken back his pig. This was confirmed by the police officer when he gave evidence (PW4) He was aware only one pig was caught in the trap. The police officer did no question my client about the rest of the pigs only the pig caught in the trap. The evidence given by the police is that if this is true that was the pig my client cut up. It was in the trap. The police did not have any facts or reliable evidence for the second count upon which to charge my client. My client gave evidence on oath and stated that he did not sell any pigs o palangi’s or in the village. He said the pigs inside the fence were his pigs. PW2 came to his allotment and my client took him to the pens to see if the pigs inside the pens were his but they were not. My client also stated he cut up the pig that was caught at the trap. My client is not guilty because the pig was released. The crown has failed to prove its case, there is insufficient evidence.


INFERENCES AND SPECULATION


A court is not entitled to speculate, but it may draw inferences. There may be strong circumstantial evidence in which a court may say, when taken together will lead to the sure conclusion it was the defendant who committed the crimes. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful evidence, but it is equally important to examine it with care and to consider whether the evidence upon which the prosecution relies in proof of its case is reliable and if it does prove guilt; or, are there any other circumstances which are, or may be of sufficient reliability and strength to weaken or destroy the prosecution’s case. Finally a court should be careful to distinguish between arriving at conclusions based upon reliable circumstantial evidence and mere speculation. Speculation in a case amounts to no more than guessing; or making up theories without good evidence to support them, neither the prosecution, the defence nor should I do that.


CONCLUSION


In this case the Defence submits the prosecution has woefully failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and they ask me to acquit the accused of all charges. I do not intend to rehearse the prosecution evidence or the prosecutions closing, speech because in a case such as this, it is a question of whom do I believe, on the evidence placed before me and this is a very short trial with few issues. It is the evidence given in open court which goes to prove whether or not I find the guilt or innocence of this particular accused. In this particular case my view is it is the evidence of PW2 which convicts this accused person but only if I care to believe his oral evidence and if I assess him as credible


ACCORDINGLY:-


I FIND THE ACCUSED GUILTY ON EACH COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT.


NUKU'ALOFA: 13 June 2006
JUDGE


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/to/cases/TOSC/2008/9.html