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

State v Lal [2004] FJHC 446; HAC0016.2003L (11 August 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC0016 OF 2003L

THE STATE

V

BRIJ LAL
SUSHIL CHANDRA
SURESH KUMAR
RAJ KUMAR
SUNIL KUMAR
RONAL ROHINESH KUMAR
ASHWIN CHANDRA

Counsel: Mr. M. Korovou for the State
Mr. I. Khan for the Accused

Hearing: 5, 6 & 9 August 2004
Ruling: 11 August 2004

RULING ON A TRIAL WITHIN A TRIAL

The 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th to 7^th accused objected the admission of their interviews by police on the 16^th of January 2003 and the admission into evidence of their charge statements of the 17^th January 2003.

The grounds of objection are:

1. That the statements were obtained in circumstances that were unfair to the accused;
   
2. The accused was systematically softened to the interview in that they were kept in custody in circumstances which were degrading and inhumane and who were unjustly handcuffed from the time they were picked up until their interview;
   

3. That the statements were obtained in circumstances that were oppressive;

4. That the statements were obtained in breach of Rule 2 and 4 of the Judges’ Rules; and
   
5. That the statements were obtained in breach of sections 23(1)(e), 25(1) and 27(1)(a), (c) and (f) of the Constitution;
   
6. The accused was assaulted by several police officers as a result the accused made confessional statements.
   

There is no evidence that the accused or any of them were handcuffed from the time they were picked up until interview.

The grounds upon which a confessional statement can be excluded from the evidence, are either that they are not voluntary or they were obtained unfairly and in breach of the rights given to persons in police custody, under section 27 of the Constitution.

In relation to voluntariness, breaches of the Judges’ Rules are relevant but do not determine what is voluntary. The real question under principle (e) of the preamble to the Judges’ Rules is whether the statement is voluntary “in the sense that it has not been obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, exercised or held out by a person in authority or by oppression.”

Oppression is something which “tends to sap and has sapped that free will which must exist before a confession is voluntary.”

As to breaches of the Constitution, section 27(1) and (2) provide as follows:

“(1) Every person who is arrested or detained has the right:

(a) be informed promptly in a language that he or she understands of the reason for his or her arrest or detention and of the nature of any charge that may be brought;

(b) to be promptly released if not charged;

(c) to consult with a legal practitioner of his or her choice in private in the place where he or she is detained, to be informed of that right promptly and, if he or she does not have sufficient means to engage a legal practitioner and the interests of justice require legal representation to be available, to be given the services of a legal practitioner under a scheme for legal aid;

(d) to be given the opportunity to communicate with, and to be visited by:

• (a) his or her spouse, partner or next-of-kin; and
  
• (b) a religious counsellor or social worker.
  

(e) to challenge the lawfulness of his or her detention before a court of law and to be released if the detention is unlawful; and

(f) to be treated with humanity and with respect for his or her inherent dignity.

(2) The authorities holding a person who has been arrested or detained must promptly take all reasonable steps to inform his or her spouse, partner or next-of-kin of his or her arrest or detention.”

A failure to comply with section 27 of the Constitution will result in the exclusion of evidence to obtained in custody unless the court is of the view that it would be fair and just to include such evidence. In R v Goodwin (1993) 2 NZLR 153, the accused was kept at a police station for questioning in relation to the death of his baby daughter. He was later convicted of her manslaughter. On appeal, it was argued that the trial judge had wrongly admitted his statements to the police.

The Court of Appeal held that for the purposes of section 23 of the Bill of Rights Act, the appellant was under arrest when he was being questioned because he was not free to go as he pleased. The appellant was therefore entitled to the rights under section 23 of the Act. On the question of the effect of beaches of the Bill of Rights, the Court of Appeal said exclusion of the confession did not automatically follow. At p.171, (per Cooke P) the Court said:

“New Zealand cases have already yielded a number of examples of good reasons for departing from the prima facie exclusion rule. They include or may include waiver of rights by the person affected; inconsequentiality, in the sense that the court can be satisfied that the admission would have been made without a breach; reasonably apprehended physical danger to the law enforcement officer or other persons; other reasons for urgency such as the risk of destruction of evidence; and the triviality of the breach if it is only a marginal departure from the individual’s rights.”

In that case the confession was held to be wrongly admitted because of the breach of section 23 and because the questioning had taken the form of “sharp cross-examination” of the appellant. In R v Kirifi [1991] NZCA 111; (1992) 2 NZLR 8, an accused person had been apprehended and handcuffed to a fence before he was interviewed by the police. He was not told that he was entitled to have a lawyer present until the interview was almost over and he had already made admissions. The trial judge excluded the admissions on the ground that there had been a breach of the Bill of Rights in relation to the right to counsel.

The Court of Appeal said that he was right. The Court said that the section 23 right to counsel, which applied to all persons “arrested or detained”, was not limited to persons who had been formally arrested. It covered a situation where a suspect was, in effect, in police custody, although he had not been formally arrested. There was a breach of the right to consult a lawyer, and the admissions were properly excluded. The Court said at page 12 and I quote:

“It seems to us that, once a breach of section 23(1)(b) has been established, the trial judge acts rightly in ruling out a consequent admission unless there are circumstances in a particular case satisfying him or her that it is fair and right to allow an admission into evidence.”

In R v Mallinson [1992] NZCA 163; (1993) 1 NZLR 528 (referred to with approval by the Chief Justice for Fiji in Mul Chand Labasa High Court Case November 1999) the New Zealand Court of Appeal held that the onus was on the prosecution to show firstly that the suspect had been told of his right to consult a lawyer before the questioning began, and secondly that the suspect understood the substance of the right and that the exercise of the right would have been implemented if he chose to exercise it. However evidence that the right had been advised, normally led to an inference that the suspect understood the nature of the right.

In that sense Mallinson was not told of this right until an hour after his arrest, but before he was interviewed. His interview was excluded, and the jury directed to acquit. On a case stated to the Court of Appeal decided that the right to consult a lawyer, and the right to be informed of that right, arose on arrest, and the right must be communicated immediately after arrest and before “the legitimate interests of the person who is arrested are jeopardized.” The police have a duty to inform the suspect of this right but no particular formula is required as long as the suspect knows he may exercise the right before questioning begins.

The Court of Appeal held that where he had been told of the right to a lawyer before questioning began, the proper inference should have been that he understood that the rights were exercisable immediately and before questioning began. Thus the trial judge should not have excluded the statements, and a new trial was ordered.

In R v Butcher [1991] NZCA 135; (1992) 2 NZLR 257, Cooke P said at p. 266:

“As indicated in Kirifi, there may be circumstances in a particular case where, despite some degree of transgression of the rights, it is fair and right to admit a confession in evidence ..... prima facie however, a violation of the rights should result in the ruling out of evidence obtained thereby. The prosecution should bear the onus of satisfying the court that there is good reason for admitting the evidence despite the violation.”

In Sudesh Jeet v The State Crim. App. No. AAU0036 of 1999S, the Court of Appeal held that where the appellant had been held in police custody for almost 3 days, before he confessed to an offence of murder, the circumstances were oppressive and in breach of section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution which gives a detained person the right to be promptly released if not charged. The court concluded that the caution and charge statements were “obtained unfairly and in oppressive circumstances” and ought to have been excluded.

In Siga Lesumailau & Sikeli Tamani v The State Crim. App. No. AAU0023 of 2000S, the appellant was in police custody for interview for 26 hours. His confession was included in evidence after a trial within a trial. His decision was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal.

In The Queen v Thompson [1893] UKLawRpKQB 74; (1893) 2 QB 12 Cave J. at p. 18 said and I quote:

“I would add that for my part I always suspect these confessions, which I suppose to be the offspring of penitence and remorse, and which nevertheless are repudiated by the prisoner at the trial. It is remarkable that it is of very rare occurrence for evidence of a confession to be given when the proof of the prisoner’s guilt is otherwise clear and satisfactory; but, when it is not clear and satisfactory, the prisoner is not unfrequently alleged to have been seized with the desire born of penitence and remorse to supplement it with a confession; - a desire which vanishes as soon as he appears in a court of justice.”

In Cleland v The Queen 151 CLR at p.15 Murphy J. said and I quote:

“The voluntariness of a confession is suspect if it is obtained by interrogation rather than being volunteered, of it, although volunteered, the procedure involved interrogation; if the confessor was in custody, lawful or otherwise; or if anything suggests inducement by threats, promises, false representations or other trickery. Because of circumstances appearing from the evidence, a judge may treat a confessions as suspect for involuntariness (even if this was not asserted by the accused because he denies making it).

If the accused within custody the trial judge must be satisfied that, notwithstanding that the accused was under the control of the police or other custodians, the confession was voluntary. If there is suspicion of threats or other inducement, the judge must be satisfied that there were none, or that these did not operate by way of inducement.”

Also in Cleland Deane J. at p. 18 said and I quote:

“At common law, a confessional statement is not admissible in evidence against an accused unless it be established that it was voluntarily made....If the making of such an alleged statement has been procured or influenced by unlawful or improper conduct on the part of law enforcement officers, that circumstance will be of relevance on the question whether the confession was voluntary. It will also, if it be established that the confession was voluntary, give rise to a subsequent question whether, in the discretion of the trial judge, evidence of the alleged confessional statement should be excluded for the reason that the reception of such evidence would be unfair to the accused: in this regard, the question is not whether the accused was treated unfairly; it is whether the reception of evidence of the confession would be unfair to him.”

In Collins v R [1980] FCA 72; (1980) 31 ALR 257 Brennan J. cautioned that it was important to ensure that a court does not tease out some fanciful meaning from or attribute some extravagant effect to what is said by a person in authority. When commenting on the observations of Lord Morris in DPP v Ping Lin, His Honour said:

“What His Lordship emphasizes is the importance of ascertaining all of the facts which may bear upon the confessionalist’s state of mind, and the importance of a practical commonsense assessment of the effect of those facts upon his mind. But the issue of voluntariness is not to be regarded as a mere problem of semantics: it is not resolved by a simple inquiry as to the meaning of the words used by a police officer (or other person in authority). An assessment must be made of the effect of the verbal and non-verbal conduct of the police officer (or other person in authority) upon the will of the confessionalist in the circumstances in which the confession is made. If the evidence does not show that the confession was made in the exercise of a free choice by the confessionalist to make it, the confession is inadmissible. As the means by which a confessionalist’s will can be overborne are various, one cannot postulate in advance of particular cases the extrinsic circumstances which will necessarily result in the exclusion of a confession as involuntary, or which will inevitably prove insufficient to found a challenge to its voluntary character. When all the facts are ascertained then in a commonsense way the court must find whether or no the will of the particular confessionalist was overborne.”

The principles governing exclusion require the asking of the following questions:

1. Was the interview/charge statement given voluntarily?

2. Was it given in oppressive or unfair circumstances?

3. Was there a breach of the rights under section 27 of the Constitution?

4. If there was a constitutional breach, is there anything in the evidence to show that the prima facie exclusion rule should not apply?
   

In considering all these questions, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, voluntariness, lack of oppression, no breach of the Constitution and, if there has been a breach, to show that the breach was inconsequential and did not result in unfairness or oppression.

I turn now to the evidence.

The State called 15 police officers that were directly involved in the interview and charging of the 6 accused persons.

That evidence was that all 6 accused and other people from the community were brought to the Nadi Police Station for questioning. They were kept in the charge room and ultimately questioned individually.

All 15 police officers stated that the 6 accused appeared normal and made no complaints to them prior to the interview.

All 6 accused were interviewed at different times and in different places on the 16^th January 2003 and were charged at different times on 17^th January 2003.

The police officers in their evidence stated that the 6 accused gave their statements voluntarily and of their own free will and that they were not assaulted, threatened, forced, intimidated and no inducement was held out to them.

Statements of the accused which are in evidence show that the 1^st accused or in fact all accused went into custody at about or shortly after midnight of 15^th January 2003. The evidence is that all accused were kept in the charge room in Nadi Police Station until being interviewed.

The 1^st accused was interviewed, commencing at 1030 hours on the 16^th of January 2003. His interviewed concluded at 1550 hours, that is a total of 5 hours 20 minutes.

The statement evidences that there were two breaks, one of 10 minutes between 1130 and 1140 hours and one of 1 hour 55 minutes between 1230 hours and 1425 hours, that is a total of 2 hours and 5 minutes. The time spent in actual interview was therefore about 3 hours 15 minutes. These 3 hour interview produced 7 handwritten pages.

The 1^st accused made a statement from the dock, in it he relevantly says, or confirms that he was taken into custody after or about 12 midnight that he and others were placed in a charge room in Nadi Police Station and then he says at about 2.30am, a person known to him as Acting Police Superintendent Arjun Singh squeezed his testicles and told him that he should agree with what he (Singh) said, if not, he would put his baton into his anus. He says he was frightened and it was after those threats, his interview was recorded and he was forced to sign that interview.

The 2^nd accused was taken into custody with a similar time on the 15^th January 2003. His interview commenced at about 0950 hours on the 16^th January 2003 and conclude at about 1745 hours on that day, a total of 7 hours 55 minutes. The record indicates that there was break between 1200 hours and 1210 hours of 10 minutes.

A further break between 1320 hours and 1450 hours of 45 minutes making a total of 1 hour and 5 minutes, in addition the 2^nd accused was taken to the scene by police offices, which involved 1 hour 50 minutes excluding those breaks then reconstruction at about 5 hours during which the 2^nd accused was interviewed, which time produced statement contained in 13 handwritten pages.

The 2^nd accused was charged at 1730 hours on the 17^th January 2003.

The 2^nd accused also gave a statement from the dock and relevantly says when he was taken to the charge room by Acting Superintendent Arjun Singh. After a period of time, he heard his son yell out, his son being the alleged victim of a robbery, which led to the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the accused.

He says that on hearing his son yell, he ran to the charge room and witnessed Acting Superintendent Singh beating his son. He says that the Acting Superintendent saw him and grabbed him by the neck and asked him why he had come to see his son and swore at him about his mother and sister. He says, Singh then threatened to throw him out of the building, that he started punching him in the stomach and kicked him in the back of his hip, which became very painful.

He says that he was interviewed at Namaka Police Station without breakfast and only having been given tea. He wasn’t able to wash his face. He was still in pain at the time the interview took place. He says that he indicated to the police at that time, the details of the assault and the pain. In the course of his interview, he says his ears were twisted, as were his fingers.

He was taken to the scene of the incident where he says he was pulled from the van by officers holding his shirt collar but he was there kicked in the back of his hip. He fell on a stone and suffered what he described as a permanent injury.

He was thereafter taken to the Nadi Police Station, put in a cell, the floor of which was a pool of water. It was dirty, toilet leaked and he was barefooted. He was given tea but he couldn’t drink, he says due to his injuries. He was removed from the cell to be charged. The records indicate took place for 30 hours on the 17^th of January 2003.

Once charged he was then for the first time since going into custody, able to wash and brush his teeth before being allowed to see his family, following which, he was returned to the cell. He was given food to eat which he says he couldn’t eat because of the state of the cell.

The 4^th accused was taken into custody at the similar time. Exhibit showed that his interview commenced at 1020 hours of the 16^th January 2003 and concluded at 1600 hours of that day, a total of 5 hours and 40 minutes. Exhibit showed that breaks were taken at 1210 hours to 1230 hours, for 20 minutes. From 1350 hours to 1425 hours, a total of 35 minutes, excluding breaks, the interview appears to have lasted for 3 hours and 45 minutes, during which time 9 handwritten pages were recorded.

The 4^th accused again makes a statement from the dock in which he relevantly says, further about 11.30pm on the 15^th January 2003, the police came and 3 to 4 police officers raided his house at about 12 midnight, 3 more police vehicles came and that he was asked by Acting Superintendent Singh how the incident have occurred. That he and others were then taken to Nadi Police Station, kept at the charge room and instructed not to talk to each other.

On 16^th January 2003 at about 10.00am, he says he was taken to the Nadi Police Station bure and prior to that time, he had been kept in the charge room, he wasn’t given a place to sleep, he wasn’t allowed to wash his face in the morning. He says he wasn’t given any breakfast and he wasn’t allowed to see family members.

He says he informed the police officers at the time, the interview commenced that he had not had a meal. They gave him food at about 1.00pm in the middle of the interview. After the interview, he was placed in the cell, he was given food and told to eat it in the cell. The cell, what he says was very dirty and was stinky, not a place to eat. The floor was full of water and he only ate a little bit of food.

He says that during interview, he asked to be taken to the hospital, check the injury to his head. He says that the officer conducting the interview said that his boss had instructed that he was not to take him to hospital at that time, but may be later. He says that the next morning at about 8.30am he was given breakfast whilst in the cell. At about 10.00am, he was taken out and told that Acting Superintendent Singh wanted to see him.

He says that he was taken to the CID Office at Nadi Police Station and was questioned by Singh. In the course of that questioning he says, Singh told him that Brij Lal, the 1^st accused, said he (4^th accused) hit the Fijian man. He says he then told, I think the Superintendent again that he did not hit Fijian man and that, I think the Superintendent Singh then threatened and said he would squeeze his testicles. He threatened him if he did not agree, he would put him in a dark cell, keeping him there for 2 or 3 days.

He said at about 3.00pm on that day, he was again interviewed by Lautoka Police Officers. They were told by Acting Superintendent Singh in his presence to change the interview. He says after completing that interview he was allowed to have a bath prior to being allowed to see his family. He ate the meal brought by his family from home.

On Saturday morning, he was allowed to wash his face, changed clothes brought by his family, went to court, after which he was taken for a medical check up.

The 5^th accused went into custody at about the same time. The exhibits show that his interview commenced at 1645 on the 16^th January 2003 and concluded at 1900 hours on that day and there were no breaks. Was interviewed for about 2 hours 15 minutes and 6 pages of handwritten pages were produced as a result of the interview.

The 5^th accused was charged on the 17^th January 2003 at 0950 hours. The 5^th accused again made a statement from the dock where he relevantly says that between 12 midnight and 1.00am the police came and asked him and 3 others to go the police station. He asked if he could change his clothes as he was wearing shorts, they said no, to go with them and would be dropped off shortly. He like the others was told to sit in the charge room and not talk to others. He says he spent the whole night sitting with the others in the charge room. In the morning he was not allowed to wash his face. In the afternoon he was taken upstairs, still in the same clothes, Acting Superintendent Singh was present, closed the door, he threatened the accused and he was told by Acting Superintendent Singh in a loud voice to sit in a chair, pushed by him, he requested water to go to the toilet and was not allowed either.

He says that at about 9.00pm he was taken into a cell and given food. He was barefooted, there was water on the floor, and he was still wearing his shorts. He says that he couldn’t sleep that night, the next morning he was again not allowed to wash his face nor he was given breakfast.

On the afternoon of Friday, he was taken to a bure, charged and after being charged and having made the charge statement, he was allowed to have a bath and he ate the food brought to him by his family. He later returned to the cell and was given food to eat in the cell which he could not eat due to the state of the cell.

On Saturday he was allowed to change into clothes brought by his family and was taken to court.

The 6^th accused was taken into custody at about the same time. Exhibits show that his interview commenced at 0940 hours on the 16^th January 2003 and concluded at 1218 hours on that day. Interview took 2 hours 38 minutes with no breaks.

He was charged at 1430 hours on the 17^th January 2003. The 6^th accused again gave statement from the dock in which he relevantly said that after midnight, the police vehicle came for him and others, taking them to the police station, put them in the charge room. They spent the whole night in the charge room that he did not sleep that night. At about 8.00am he was told to have breakfast, he was not allowed to wash his face and was not allowed to see his family members. He said he was then taken to the Crime Officer’s Room and whilst he was climbing the steps, the Acting Superintendent Singh punched him in the stomach, slapped him on the back of the head. He told him to agree with what the police officers asked. He says that Acting Superintendent Singh showed him chillis in the Crime Office where he was cautioned and the interview took place.

He says that when he asked to see a solicitor or family members, he was refused and told that he do so later after the interview. He says he didn’t agree with the police, they stood behind him and punching him in the back. He was told to answer by shaking his head, when he didn’t answer as required he was again punched in the back. When he tried to give explanations he says police officers refused to write his answers down and told him he had to say yes.

He says that Acting Superintendent Singh threatened him again and slapped him on his face. At the conclusion of his interview, he was told to sign it and when he asked to read it, his request was refused. They did not read it to him. After the interview, he was taken to a cell. He was only wearing shorts and the t-shirts. Prior to going to the cell, he was told by Acting Superintendent Singh to cooperate or else he would be put in a cell with Fijian boys in custody.

He says that at about 7.00pm, he was taken to the hospital, after which he was given food in the cell but like others, couldn’t eat due to the state of the cell and he says due to the pain he was suffering from the assaults and again says he couldn’t sleep. He asked for medication, which was not given to him.

The next morning he was given breakfast in the cell and wasn’t allowed to wash his face. He says he was very hungry, as he had not eaten for 2 days. That after lunch he was taken from the cell to bure and charged. He again says he was threatened at the bure by Acting Superintendent Singh if he didn’t cooperate he would be further assaulted.

He says he was told by Acting Superintendent Singh to agree with what was being said that he was merely to sign what had been written and he says that he was frightened and he did what they said.

The 7^th accused was taken into custody again at about the same time. He was interviewed commenced at 0940 hours on the 16^th January 2003 and concluded at 1745 hours on that same day about 8 hours later including breaks of a total of 1 hour 20 minutes. In addition, the 7^th accused was taken to the scene, which took 1 hour 30 minutes. About 5 hours was spent in questioning the 7^th accused, which produced 13 pages of handwritten statement.

The 7^th accused again gave his statement from the dock. He was taken to Nadi Police Station and placed in the charge room. He said he couldn’t sleep all night because of the mosquitoes. At 7.30am the next morning, Acting Superintendent Singh and others took him upstairs.

He says then Acting Superintendent Singh was pressing his neck back and all 3 police officers present were punching him simultaneously. Acting Superintendent Singh was threatening him, continuing assaulting him and show him chillies and threatened to use them on him. He was then told to go to Namaka Police Station. He says Acting Superintendent Singh took him to a window and said if he didn’t agree with what he said he would throw him out of the window but would then say that he had jumped.

He was taken back to Nadi Police Station and placed in a cell full of water and like others, he was barefooted. He says he suffers from asthma. Later, police officers were drinking grog and he was made to mix the grog for them and they then forced him to drink grog.

He raised his health issues with police officers.

As I have said the accused all chose to give unsworn statements from the dock and the 15 police officers gave sworn evidence and were cross-examined by counsel for the accused.

What weight do I place on the unsworn statements of the accused persons?

The issues was considered by the English Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Frost and Hale where Lord Parker CJ said:

“In delivering the judgment of the court said, in referring to the evidential value of a statement made from the dock. It is clearly not evidence in the sense of sworn evidence that can be cross examined to; on the other hand it is evidence in the sense that the jury can give to it such weight as they think fit.....it is quite clear today that it has become the practice.....for a judge not necessarily to read out to the jury the statement made by the prisoner from the dock, but to remind them of it, to tell them it is not sworn evidence which can be cross-examined to but that nevertheless they can attach to it such weight as they think fit, and should take it into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution have made out their case.....is more than mere comment, and in so far as it is stating facts, it is clearly something more and different from the comments in counsel’s speeches.”

Conclusion

The burden rests with the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confessions were voluntarily made, that there was a lack of oppressions and that there was no breach of the Constitution or of the Judges’ Rules.

As each of the 6 accused make allegations of assault, intimidation and threats by Divisional Crime Officer Western, Acting Superintendent Arjun Singh, I find it surprising that he was not called by the prosecution to give evidence.

The allegations were put to the interviewing officers in cross-examination and were denied.

Notwithstanding that the accused only gave dock statements, I am of the opinion that on the allegations being made it was incumbent on the prosecution to call the officer to satisfy the burden that it bears.

In the circumstances therefore I find as a fact that the 6 accused were each assaulted, intimidated and threatened by Acting Superintendent Arjun Singh. I further find that the 6 accused were each interviewed without adequate rest or meals. The circumstances in which they were kept prior to being charged and the charge statements being taken were such as to make those statements involuntary. They were made after the accused had been held in custody for from between about 38 and 44 hours without adequate food, sleeping arrangements or washing facilities.

I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the caution interviews and charge statements were voluntarily made in circumstances of fairness to each of the 6 accused and accordingly the admissions contained in those interviews and statements are inadmissible.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

AT LAUTOKA
11 AUGUST 2004