IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 079 OF 2012S

STATE

vs

K. N. P

Counsels : Ms. M. Fong for State
Accused in Person
Hearings : 11th, 12th and 13th March, 2013
Ruling : 13th March, 2013
Written Reasons: 14th March, 2013

WRITTEN REASONS FOR RULING "ON NO CASE TO ANSWER SUBMISSION"

1.	On 13th March, 2013, the prosecution closed her case after calling 6 witnesses, that is, 3 civilians and 3 police officers. When asked whether or not he wishes to make a submission of "no case to answer", the accused said, he wish to exercise his right to remain silent.

2.	The court is duty bound to consider the effect of Section 231(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009, whether or not "a submission of no case to answer" is made by the defence.

3.	Section 231(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009 reads as follows:

(1)	When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, and after hearing (if necessary) any arguments which the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, the court shall record a finding of not guilty if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused person (or any one of several accused) committed the offence.

(2)	When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court shall, if it considers that there is evidence that the accused person (or any one or more of several accused persons) committed the offence, inform each such accused person of their right:

(a)	to address the court, either personally or by his or her lawyer (if any); and

(b)	to give evidence on his or her own behalf; and

(c)	to call witnesses in his or her defence.

4. Section 231(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009 is somewhat similar to the repealed section 293(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 21. Consequently, the authorities on the interpretation of section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code also applied to the interpretation of section 231(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009.

5. The test in the interpretation of the above sections are well settled. It is whether or not, there is some relevant and admissible evidence, direct or circumstantial, touching on all elements of the offence, the weight and credibility of such evidence, are not matters for assessment by the court, at this stage of the proceeding. The weight and credibility of such evidence, are matters for the assessors, in the trial proper. I rely on the following authorities: Sisa Kalisoqo v Reginam, Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1984, Fiji Court of Appeal; The State v Mosese Tuisawau, Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1990, Fiji Court of Appeal, and The State v George Shiu Raj & Another, Criminal Appeal No. AAU 0081 of 2005, Fiji Court of Appeal and The State v Brian Singh, Criminal Appeal No. AAU 0097 of 2005, Fiji Court of Appeal, all Court of Appeal Authorities.

6. Applying the above authorities to the evidence presented by the prosecution, I find there is a prima facie case against the accused. I ruled accordingly on 13th March, 2013, and the above are my reasons. The accused was then given his options, as required by Section 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009.

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Suva 
Solicitor for Accused : In Person