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

State v Seniloli (1) [2004] FJHC 38; HAC0028.2003 (6 July 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0028 OF 2003S

STATE

v.

RATU JOPE SENILOLI
RATU RAKUITA VAKALALABURE
RATU VILIAME VOLAVOLA
ISIRELI LEWENIQILA
PECELI RINAKAMA
VILIAME SAVU

Hearing: 6th July 2004
Ruling: 6th July 2004

Counsel: Mr. M. Tedeschi, Mr. G. Allan, Ms A. Prasad for State;
Mr. M. Raza for 1st Accused;
2nd Accused in Person;
Mr. S. Naqase for 3rd & 6th Accused;
Mr. D. Sharma for 4th Accused;
Mr. A. Seru for 5th Accused.

RULING ON THE EDITING
OF POLICE STATEMENTS OF THE ACCUSED

There is dispute about the admissibility of certain parts of the statements made by each accused by the police. The prosecution intends to edit portions of the statements which refer to matters which are not relevant to this trial. The defence ask either that other portions be deleted or, in the case of the 6th accused excluded altogether on the ground of lack of probative value. In the absence of any agreement on the matter, I propose to rule on all matters in dispute. There is no allegation of police misconduct, or breach of Constitutional rights. The only issue is fairness.

The 1st Accused

The 1st accused made two statements, on the 25th of October 2000 and on the 15th of December 2000. The allegation in the first statement is in respect of a number of incidents which are not the subject of this trial, including the rioting in Suva, roadblocks, and the taking over of police stations and army camps. These allegations have no relevance to this case and are highly prejudicial. It was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal (England) in Knight and Thompson (1946) Cr. App. R. 52 that where portions of a statement relating to other offences are read to the jury, the effect is prejudicial and the ensuring convictions must be quashed. Although Mr. Raza asks to retain these allegations despite their prejudicial effect, I am not persuaded that they have any probative value at all in respect of the trial issues. The allegations must be deleted.

Mr. Raza objects to Q.25 which is a question about SVT meetings organised to weaken the government and to remove the then Prime Minister. Since the answer is a denial as to knowledge of the substance of the meetings, this may assist the accused. In any event, statements which are partly self-serving are admissible. However the questioning from Q.68 to Q.88 are in relation to irrelevant matters in relation to the charge against the 1st accused and must be deleted.

In the second interview, the allegation is innocuous and may remain. However, Mr. Raza asks for Questions 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 to be excluded. They all refer to an SVT meeting held to discuss a petition presented to the Council of Chiefs to remove the Chaudhary Government and establish a Fijian-led government. These questions are highly relevant to the case, in particular in the light of the cross-examination conducted by Mr. Raza. However, I see no relevance in questions and answers which give no information other than what is in the mind of the interviewer. Questions 21, 22, 23 and 24 will be excluded for lack of probative value. The remaining questions and answers are relevant and admissible.

The 2nd Accused

I will rule on the 2nd accused’s interview after I have heard from counsel. Mr. Singh is in the Court of Appeal this afternoon and will be back in this trial tomorrow.

The 3rd Accused

The allegations are in respect of the actual takeover of Parliament, the issuing of decrees, the taking of hostages, and the inciting of ill-will amongst the races of Fiji. These are not trial issues and must be deleted. Further, questions 33 to 37 have no relevance to the charge and must be deleted.

The 4th Accused

There is no doubt that the allegations are prejudicial and irrelevant and must be deleted. Mr. Sharma said he considered that they were relevant to show the court the proximity between the offence charged and treason in order to prove that this prosecution is an abuse of the process. However editing the interviews for the assessors, does not preclude the defence from raising this issue before me in due course. Mr. Sharma objects also to questions 11 to 44 of the interview conducted on the 25th of April 2001. These are questions about meetings held by a group of people in the SVT party, which allegedly planned to overthrow the government. In the course of the questions, the 4th accused admitted being a member of the SVT Party, admitted attending a meeting of the 11th of April 2000, admitted seeing one Jim Speight at the meeting, and said it was a normal meeting discussing a presentation of a tabua to the Great Council of Chiefs. He admitted attending a further meeting on the 9th of May 2000 which led to the setting up of a task force to organise a march in Suva with the Nationalist Party. He denied all knowledge of a “coup briefing” at the SVT Office on 18th May 2000 and all knowledge of the coup itself and attempts to remove Ratu Mara as President of Fiji.

I consider that these questions relate to offences with which the 4th accused has not been charged. The attendance of the SVT meeting appears, (on a reading of this interview) to have little to do with these charges. They are to be deleted.

Further, questions 62 to 74 have no relevance to this case and must be deleted. However Q.75, which Mr. Sharma objects to, is relevant and the answer is obviously relevant to the trial. Similarly with Q.76 and Q.77 they will remain. I do not accept that the questions and answers amount to oppressive questioning. Mr. Sharma can of course cross-examine the police officer about the meaning and the scope of the questions asked.

5th Accused

Mr. Seru agrees that the allegation and a large part of the interview are irrelevant and inadmissible, and submits that the entire interview be excluded on the ground of lack of probative value and unfairness. He further states that the 5th accused should have been interviewed again after the Information was amended.

Of course, it would have been highly irregular for the police to re-interview anyone after charges had been laid, and I doubt that any such statement could have been admitted without hearing submissions on admissibility and fairness. Certainly in this case, the factual basis for both Informations being the same, there was no need to re-interview the accused after amendment.

It is not in dispute that all irrelevant material must be removed from the 5th accused’s interview. That includes the allegations, and the part of the answer to Q.6 which commences “A delegation from the Bose Levu Vakaturaga....” Q.8 and the answer are inadmissible on the ground of irrelevance, as are questions 14, 15 and 16.

I cannot agree that the remaining portions lack probative value. Indeed, in a very long answer to Q.5, the accused explains in detail the circumstances of the swearing-in ceremony which are highly relevant. I see no unfairness in allowing the remaining portions to go before the assessors. I rule accordingly.

6th Accused

The allegations again are inadmissible and must be deleted. The 6th accused made admissions about being part of a group which planned a march and another group on the 18th of May 2000 when George Speight announced his plan to conduct a coup. It was preceded by another “coup meeting” on the 8th of May 2000, but the 6th accused denied being present at the earlier meeting. These questions and answers suggest the commission of another offence “of misprison of treason” and they are inadmissible. The questions from Q.15 to 25 inclusive must be deleted. Q.29 must also be deleted. I am not persuaded that any probative value in leading evidence of a misprison of treason to rebut a possible defence of compulsion outweighs the prejudicial effect of the leading of evidence which suggests the commission of another offence.

Questions about the Muanikau Accord are irrelevant and questions 61 to 76 inclusive must be deleted.

I rule accordingly. The prosecution must ensure that typed versions of the interviews are available for exhibiting together with the originals which will not be shown to the assessors.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
6th July 2004