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

State v Moce [1994] FJHC 81; HAC0158d.1987s (18 July 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.HAA0158.87

STATE

v.

SAKEO MOCE

Counsel: Ms S. Kaimacuata for State
Accused in person

Hearing: 18 July 1994
Decision: 18 July 1994

ORAL DECISION OF PAIN J. ON VOIR DIRE

In this case the accused objects to the admissibility of the statement intended to be produced by the prosecution. The statement relates to an interview in respect of a number of different matters. If admissible it can only be those portions relevant to the present charge that can be admitted. This objection has been dealt with on a Voir Dire before trial. This has been done with the consent of the defendant and the prosecutor. The reason is that the statement intended to be produced provides the only connection of this accused to the specific robbery with which he had been charged.

The accused denies that this was a statement voluntarily made by him. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the statement was made voluntarily and this is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has called only the interviewing officer Inspector Waisake. In brief he says that the accused was interviewed in the normal manner. The accused was cooperative. It was a normal caution interview in which questions were put and those questions and answers given to him were recorded. He says that this record of interview was read over and signed by the accused. He says that this was entirely voluntary on the accused's part and no force or compulsion was exerted upon him.

The accused gives a different version. He says that the statement must have been prepared in advance. He says that he did not see it being written out. He had never seen it until it was given to him to sign and he had no idea what was in it. He says that he was actually given more than one statement to sign. He says that at that time three policemen were in the interview room. Inspector Waisake sat on a chair. Another policeman was punching the Defendant in the stomach while a third gave the Defendant the statements to sign. He acknowledges that it is his signature on the statement that has been produced.

I have considered all the evidence. This somewhat incredible story given by the Defendant is inconsistent with other evidence. It is at variance with the clear and convincing evidence from Inspector Waisake who had good suspicions for this interview with the accused. It is also inconsistent with the nature of the statement itself. It is a lengthy statement taken over a long period with interruptions. The interruptions included a break of considerable length for lunch and a tour of the complainants' premises for identification. Furthermore, read as a whole, the statement contains personal statements that the police would not be expected to know or be able to make up. At the end of the interview the Defendant was charged with 14 offences and it is clear from the depositions that this took a considerable length of time after an interview that lasted a very good part of the day. The record shows that the Defendant appeared in Court next day before the Chief Magistrate. He admits that he has some awareness of Criminal Procedures. At no stage did he complain to anybody about these alleged police tactics and more particularly about the alleged assault upon him. He did not complain on the day of arrest when he had opportunity to do so nor the next day in court nor at any time until this trial.

Having considered the evidence I reject the accused's evidence as a pure fabrication. I accept the evidence of Inspector Waisake and find the prosecution has proved the voluntariness of the statement. The appropriate portion can be admitted in evidence at this trial.

JUSTICE D.B. PAIN

HAC0158D.87S