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

State v Laojindamanee - Judgment [2012] FJHC 1485; HAC323.2012 (13 December 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Crim.Case No: HAC323 of 2012
(consolidated with HAC324/12, 325/12, and 364/12)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

PHANAT LAOJINDAMANEE
LUM BING
ZHANG YONG
JASON ZHONG

Counsel : Ms S. Puamau with Mr. R. Prakash for the State
Mr. A. Vakaloloma for first accused
Mr. I. Fa for second accused
Mr. A. Naco for third accused
Mr. G. O'Driscoll for fourth accused

Dates of Hearing : 19 November – 13 December 2012

JUDGMENT

[1] Phanat Laojindamanee, Lum Bing, Zhang Yong and Jason Zhong, you have been charged with the following offences:

FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence

AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS: Contrary to section 112(5) and section 113(1)(a)(i) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.

Particulars of Offence

PHANAT LAOJINDAMANEE and LUM BING, between the 5th day of September 2012 and the 7th day of September 2012, with intent that KWANCHANOK KUNOK be exploited after arrival in Fiji, facilitated the entry of KWANCHANOK KUNOK into Fiji, and deceived the said KWANCHANOK KUNOK about the fact that the arrangements for the said KWANCHANOK KUNOK's stay in Fiji would involve her exploitation.

SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence

AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS: Contrary to section 112(2) and section 113(1)(a)(i) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.

Particulars of Offence

PHANAT LAOJINDAMANEE and LUM BING, between the 5th day of September 2012 and the 7th day of September 2012, with intent that AIMPIKA JUMRAT be exploited after arrival in Fiji, facilitated the entry of AIMPIKA JUMRAT into Fiji, and deceived the said AIMPIKA JUMRAT about the fact that the arrangements for the said AIMPIKA JUMRAT's stay in Fiji would involve her exploitation.

THIRD COUNT
Statement of Offence

DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS: Contrary to section 115(3) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.

Particulars of Offence

ZHANG YONG, on the 7th day of September 2012, facilitated the transportation of KWANCHANOK KUNOK from Nadi to Suva and deceived the said KWANCHANOK KUNOK about the fact that arrangements made for KWANCHANOK KUNOK following the transportation would involve the provision by KWANCHANOK KUNOK of sexual services to others.

FOURTH COUNT
Statement of Offence

DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS: Contrary to section 115(3) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.

Particulars of Offence

ZHANG YONG, on the 7th day of September 2012, facilitated the transportation of AIMPIKA JUMRAT from Nadi to Suva and deceived the said AIMPIKA JUMRAT about the fact that arrangements made for AIMPIKA JUMRAT following the transportation would involve the provision by AIMPIKA JUMRAT of sexual services to others.

FIFTH COUNT
Statement of Offence

SEXUAL SERVITUDE: Contrary to section 106(1) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.

Particulars of Offence

JASON ZHONG from the 9th day of September 2012, at Suva in the Central Division, with intent to cause sexual servitude, threatened to enforce a claimed debt of $1,900.00 against KWANCHANOK KUNOK if KWANCHANOK KUNOK refused to provide sexual services to others, which conduct caused the said KWANCHANOK KUNOK to enter into sexual servitude.

SIXTH COUNT
Statement of Offence

SEXUAL SERVITUDE: Contrary to section 106(1) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.

Particulars of Offence

JASON ZHONG from the 9th day of September 2012, at Suva in the Central Division, with intent to cause sexual servitude, threatened to enforce a claimed debt of $1,900.00 against AIMPIKA JUMRAT if AIMPIKA JUMRAT refused to provide sexual services to others, which conduct caused the said AIMPIKA JUMRAT to enter into sexual servitude.

[2] After trial, the assessors have returned with the following opinions:

Count 1 (1st accused): Not guilty of aggravated

trafficking but guilty of trafficking

in persons, by a majority.

Count 1 (2nd accused): Not guilty by a majority of

aggravated trafficking but guilty

of trafficking in persons, by a

majority.

Count 2 (1st accused): Not guilty of aggravated

trafficking by a majority but

guilty of trafficking in persons, by

a majority.

Count 2 (2nd accused): Not guilty of aggravated

trafficking by a majority but

guilty of trafficking in persons, by

a majority.

Count 3 (3rd accused): Unanimous guilty.

Count 4 (3rd accused): Unanimous guilty.

Count 5 (4th accused): Unanimous guilty.

Count 6 (4th accused): Unanimous guilty.

[3] The opinions in respect of the 3rd and 4th accused are clear. The Court in directing itself on the summing up agrees with those verdicts, finds the 3rd and 4th accused guilty of counts three, four, five and six and convicts them accordingly.

[4] The opinions of the assessors on count one and count two against the 1st and 2nd accused are mixed. The Court in directing itself on the summing up will agree with the majority verdicts of the assessors and therefore finds the 1st and 2nd accused guilty of the lesser count of trafficking in persons on both counts one and two. They are convicted on each count accordingly.

[5] That is the judgment of the Court.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Suva
13 December, 2012