Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Court of Appeal of Fiji

Tulagi v State [2015] FJCA 111; AAU90.2013 (13 March 2015)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
[On Appeal from the High Court]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: AAU 90 OF 2013
[High Court Case No: HAC 69/2008]

BETWEEN:

ADRIU TULAGI
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram : Goundar JA
Counsel : Appellant in person
Mr. L. Fotofili for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 20 October 2014
Date of Ruling : 13 March 2015

RULING

[1] Following a trial in the High Court at Suva, the appellant was convicted on three counts of robbery with violence and one count of unlawful use of motor vehicle. On 24 April 2014 he was sentenced to a term of 14 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years. On 6 May 2014, the appellant filed a timely application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

[2] The appellant has elected to represent himself. He was also unrepresented at trial. Since he is unrepresented I have carefully read all the documents he has filed in support of his appeal. His main complaint relates to the admissibility of his confession under caution.

[3] The admissibility of the confession was determined in a voir dire. The appellant contended that he was assaulted by the police officers. As a result of the assault, he sustained bodily injuries. He tendered a medical report that showed the injuries. The injuries noted in the medical report were serious. The examining doctor also noted that the appellant was distressed when he examined him on 7 March 2008. The prosecution offered no explanation for the injuries. The trial judge admitted the confession saying the injuries did not correlate with the history related to the doctor by the appellant. I find the admissibility of the appellant's confession is an arguable issue.

[4] My second concern relates to the trial judge's directions on the appellant's confession. The trial judge directed the assessors to consider the voluntariness of the appellant's confession and not the truth or weight. Arguably this was a misdirection.

[5] The term of 14 years' imprisonment reflected the appellant's involvement in a spate of offences. The total sentence was within the tariff for aggravated robbery, which is 10 to 16 years' imprisonment (Kean v State unreported Cr. App. No. AAU95/08; 13 November 2013). The sentence appeal is not arguable.

Result
[6] Leave to appeal against conviction granted.

[7] Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

.....................................
Hon. Mr. Justice D. Goundar
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Solicitors:
Appellant in person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent