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

State v Baleloa [2003] FJHC 231; HAM0041.2003S (30 December 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: HAM0041 OF 2003S

STATE

-V-

JOSEFA BALELOA & OTHERS

Hearing: 22nd December 2003
Ruling: 30th December 2003

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr ..P. Bulamainaivalu for State

RULING ON CHANGE OF PLEA

The Defendant is convicted of a number of offences of robbery with violence, and 2 charges of house – breaking entry and larceny. He has 42 previous convictions. The Learned Magistrate has committed the sentencing of the Defendant to the High Court, having concluded that his sentencing powers were insufficient to sentence him appropriately.

When the case was called in the High Court, the Defendant said that he wanted to change his plea. On the 4th of November 2003, when the matter was next called in the High Court, Mr.F.Hanif appeared for the Defendant and said that the Accused was determined to apply for change of plea and that if this was the case, Mr. Hanif would not continue to represent him. The Defendant was represented by Mr. Hanif in the lower court when the pleas were taken. I gave him leave to withdraw. The Defendant than applied for Legal Aid. Legal Aid has been granted for the sentencing process only.

The change of plea application was then made by the Defendant in person on the 22nd of December 2003. The grounds are that the Defendant was in remand when he pleaded to the charges, that the facts did not disclose the offences, and that he had been pressurized by two Police officers, Tuvili and Jitoko, to plead guilty. This conversation has allegedly taken place in the cell block of Government Buildings.

The State submitted that at the time of plea, the Defendant has been represented by counsel and that he understood the nature of the charges. The State further said that when initially asked for reasons for the change of plea, the Defendant had said that he has been pressured to plead guilty by the prison authorities. He later changed his reasons to pressure by police officers. There being no reasons to believe that the pleas were equivocal, State counsel invites me to dismiss this application.

The court records show that when the cases were first called, the defendant asked to defer plea in order to seek legal advice. Disclosure of witness statements was then effected and the matters and proceed to September 2003 when he was represented by Mr. Hanif. The Defendant then elected Magistrates Court hearing, and pleaded guilty after saying that he understood the charges. The committal for sentence was done after the consolidation of all charges.

There is nothing on the record to suggest equivocal pleas. A plea of guilty maybe withdrawn, with the leave of the Court at any time before sentence (S. Cay Infant ) V Manchester City Recorder (1971) A.C. 481. The application should be allowed if made on the ground that the prosecution evidence would not establish the essential elements of the offence, or where it appears that the plea was equivocal.

I have perused the facts on each court record and find that they do establish the ingredients of each offence charged although some facts could be improved on by further detail. The Defendant, having received legal advice, agreed with those facts. The facts do disclose the offences for which the Defendant has been convicted.

In respect of police pressure, my own record shows the following notes for the 4th of November:

“Mr.Hanif: He says he was pressurized by the prison authorities to plead guilty to all his files. I have explained to him the law on change of plea.”

And later on the same day:

“Accused: Yes. I want to change all my pleas. The prison authorities put pressure on me to plead guilty. ”

On the 22nd of December 2003 the Defendant changed his position. The record reads:

“Accused: I did not understand the facts read by the prosecutor. I was pressured by the investigating officer to change my plea. This was in June for all the charges. He told me to plead guilty because I had already confessed to the crimes. I told him I didn’t want to but he kept on saying this. His name is officer Tuvili and also Jitoko at Central Police Station.”

Quite apart from the Defendant’s inconsistency as the source of the pressure, I note that he did not plead guilty until the 1st of September 2003 when he was represented by counsel. If pressure had indeed been put on him in June, that pressure was clearly ineffective because he maintained his pleas of not guilty until September 2003.

In all the circumstances, I consider that there are no grounds to all the Defendant to change his pleas. His application is dismissed, and I will now proceed to a sentencing hearing.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
30th December 2003