IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0013 OF 1999

STATE

v.

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI
SAIRUSI UASIRO
SAIMONI SABAKERA

Counsel: Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State
Mr. N. Vere for 1st and 2nd Accused
Mr. E. Veretawatini for 3rd Accused

RULING

Counsel for the 3rd accused submits that there is insufficient evidence to put the 3rd accused to his defence. State counsel disagrees.

The test to be applied at this stage of the trial, is whether on each count on the Information, there is evidence that the accused committed the offences (Sisa Kalisoqo –v- State Crim. App. No. 52 of 1984; State –v- Mosese Tuisawau Crim. App. No. 14 of 1990). If there is some relevant and admissible evidence, direct or circumstantial, touching on all the elements of the offences, then there is a prima facie case under section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The charges are as follows:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO and SAIMONI SABAKERA and another on the 21st day of May, 1999 at Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to SARASWATI PRIMARY SCHOOL.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

SCHOOL BREAKING, ENTERING WITH INTENT TO COMMIT FELONY: Contrary to section 302(2) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMAKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO, SAIMONI SABAKERA and another on the 21st day of May, 1999 at Nausori in the Central Division, broke and entered Saraswati Primary School with intent to commit a felony therein namely arson.

THIRD COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO and SAIMONI SABAKERA and another on the 22nd day of May 1999 at Korociriciri, Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to KOROCIRICIRI INDIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL.

FOURTH COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO and SAIMONI SABAKERA on the 22nd day of May, 1999 at Wainibokasi, Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to SHREEDHAR MAHARAJ COLLEGE.

FIFTH COUNT

Statement of Offence

SCHOOL BREAKING, ENTERING WITH INTENT TO COMMIT FELONY: Contrary to section 302(2) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMAKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO, SAIMONI SABAKERA and another on the 22nd day of May, 1999 at Wainibokasi, Nausori in the Central division, broke and entered Shreedhar Maharaj College with intent to commit a felony therein namely arson.

SIXTH COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI on the 22nd day of May, 1999 at Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to the SOQOSOQO NI VAKAVULEWA NI TAUKEI OFFICE.

There is no dispute that some person or persons committed the offences charged. What is disputed in this case is that the accused were involved in the offending. State counsel, very properly conceded that there was no evidence linking any of the accused to the burning of the SVT office on Count 6. He was right to make that concession. Neither the 1st nor the 2nd accused confessed to the arson on Count 6. The witness Laisenia Dakunaturaga said nothing about the SVT office in his evidence. There is no evidence that Count 6 was inextricably linked to the arson attacks on the other counts. There is no evidence that any of the accused were involved in the petrol bombing of the SVT office in May 1999. They are each acquitted on Count 6.

There is clearly a prima facie case in respect of the 1st and 2nd accused on the remaining counts, on the basis of the evidence of Laisenia Dakunaturaga and the 2nd accused’s statement to the police.

However I consider that there is no evidence to show the 3rd accused’s involvement on Counts 1 to 5 on the Information. His interviews with the police have been excluded. Laisenia Dakunaturaga did not implicate him except to say that the van conveying the men on the 21st of May 1999, was white in colour. The van itself contained items which do not appear to be linked directly or indirectly with arson activities. Although the 3rd accused was apprehended that night at the Visama junction in his white van, simply evading arrest does not lead to an inference that he was involved in arson and school-breaking in areas some distance from the Visama junction.

State counsel said he relied on Molly O’Connor’s statement to show that there was a prima facie case. In that statement, which was tendered by consent, she said that at about 11.50am on the 24th of May 1999, the 3rd accused (her cousin) came to her home at O’Connor Lane, Nausori and asked her if she had taken a kerosene drum from her garden. She told him she had not. He then brought her a drum with some kerosene in it. She told him she was going to call the police “since there has been burning going around in town and Nausori area. I believe that this could be the drum which may have been used for burning.” She then informed the police and handed it over to the police.

The 3rd accused’s conduct may well have raised his cousin’s suspicions. However, his involvement in the arson attacks of the 21st of May 1999 is not the only inference which one can draw from his conduct. There are a host of other equally logical inferences which one might draw from his conduct, which are consistent with his innocence.

I do not consider that Molly O’Connor’s evidence shows that the 3rd accused committed the offences charged either directly or circumstantially. There being no other evidence linking him to the charges, I find that there is insufficient evidence to put him to his defence on all counts. I acquit him accordingly.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
2nd September 2003