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

State v Turaganikeli [2010] FJHC 50; HAC006.2009R (19 February 2010)

AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 006 OF 2009R

STATE

V

KEASI TURAGANIKELI

Counsels: Ms. S. Tagivakatini and Ms. S. Puamau for the State
Ms. S. Vaniqi for the Accused

Hearing: 15th, 16th and 17th February, 2010
Ruling: 19th February, 2010

RULING

1. In this case, Doctor Abha Gupta, of Labasa Hospital, was giving evidence, in the "manslaughter trial" against the accused. She was the doctor that conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased, Tevita Moce, at CWM Hospital on 20th December 2008. She also prepared a report, which was tendered as Prosecution Exhibit No.2, by consent of the parties.

2. During her evidence, she explained to the court her post-mortem report, and the details of her finding. She explained to us in layman’s terms her findings, which were expressed in complicated medical terms. She explained to us in detail the cause of Tevita Moce’s death. She said the cause of death was "intra cranial hemorrhage and fracture skull due to trauma (physical assault). She said, the deceased died because his brain tissue was damaged, as a result of his fractured skull. Blood was present between the last membrane covering the brain and the brain tissue itself. Doctor Gupta described the cause of death very well.

3. In the middle of her evidence, the prosecution applied for leave to tender 3 coloured photographs of the deceased, in the CWM mortuary. Photograph No.1 showed the deceased lying on the mortuary table. Photograph No.2 and 3 showed the deceased on the mortuary table, with his skull opened revealing his brain, and the blood surrounding the same. Defence Counsel strongly objected to the tendering of the above evidence, on the ground that, its prejudicial effect would far outweigh its probative value. She said, the cause of the deceased’s death was not disputed by the defence. Second, they are not disputing the contents of the post-mortem report, which they had already agreed to be tendered by consent, as Prosecution Exhibit No.2. Third, Doctor Gupta has clearly explained to the court, in detail and in layman’s terms, the cause of the deceased’s death. What more is required? Even State Counsel conceded there were prejudicial effects to the photographs.

4. I have carefully considered both parties’ verbal submissions. I have also carefully considered the State’s written submission. It is the duty of the court to ensure that the accused is tried fairly. The cause of the deceased’s death is not a disputed issue in this trial. The post-mortem report, which explained the cause of death, was tendered by consent of the parties. Doctor Gupta’s evidence has clearly explained to the court, in layman’s term, the deceased’s cause of death. The State even conceded the photographs have pre-judicial effects. In the exercise of my discretion, I rule the 3 photographs inadmissible evidence, because its prejudicial effect far outweighs its probative value.

Salesi Temo
ACTING JUDGE

AT Suva
19th February 2010