IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC. 203 of 2012

STATE

v

LAISIASA WAQABITU

Counsel: Ms. S. Kant for State
 Mr. P. Tawake for Accused

Date of Hearing: 19th May 2015

Ruling: 20th May 2015

RULING
[Voir Dire]

1.	1st Accused LaisiasaWaqabitu challenges the admissibility of his caution interview statement he made to the police on 14th June 2012 on the following grounds:

1.	That the accused person's caution interview was recorded in English however he was questioned in the I-taukei language.

2.	That question 5 of the caution interview was never posed to the accused person as such the question and answers to the same are fabricated.

3.	That his caution interview was never read back to him at the completion of the interview.

2. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession made by the accused was voluntary, and was made without threats, inducement, promise or oppression. Also prosecution must prove that the accused was given his rights and if his rights were breached that he was not prejudiced by the breach.

3. At the Voir Dire inquiry the Interviewing Officer gave evidence for the prosecution and the accused gave evidence on his behalf.

4. Interviewing Officer said that he interviewed the 1st accused LaisiasaWaqabitu under caution. Only he had been present with the accused at the interview. He said that the accused opted to record the interview in English language.

5. Accused was given the opportunity to consult a lawyer. He said that the questions were put to him in English. He said that the accused did not have any difficulty in understanding the English language.

6. He has not read over the interview statement back to the accused nor had asked the accused whether he wanted to read it. Accused has not complained of anything. Accused answered voluntarily, he said.

7. In cross examination he said that the accused signed voluntarily. Accused had agreed to sign. He had explained the questions to the accused in I-taukei language for him to understand better. He said the accused told him that he studied up to form 3. He said that he did not explain what rape is because it is a known word.

8. The witness has asked the accused whether he wanted to alter or delete anything what he said.In answer to question no.41 he had added to what he said.He said that the answers written are the answers given by the accused.

9. The accused giving evidence said that he has studied only up to class 8. He said that he requested the interview to be recorded in I-taukei language. He said when he was taken to the place where the incident took place he admitted that it was the place where he took the girl. But he was not asked about rape, he said. He said that the questions were translatedto him in 
I-taukei language and written in English language. He has signed because the officer has asked him to sign.

10. In cross examination he said that he does not know good English. He said that his writing in English was not that good.

11. The ground No. 2 the accused urged is a matter for the assessors to decide whether the question was fabricated.

12. The interviewing officer clearly said that he explained the questions to the accused in I-taukei language and was recorded in English language.Accused also in his evidence admitted that position. The interviewing officer said that he did not give breaks to the accused during the interview. However the accused himself admitted that he was taken to the scene of the incident where he admitted that he took the girl there.I find the police officer who testified is truthful and reliable and forthright. I find that the accused was never threatened induced or oppressed.Accused never complained of any threat, inducement or promise and no such grounds were urged by the accused.Although the statement was not read back to the accused, he has not alleged that the answers recorded were not of his, other that the question No. 5 which he says fabricated. It is a matter for the assessors to decide.

13. Hence I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was made voluntary and without oppression. Therefore I find that the caution interview statement to be admissible in evidence.

Priyantha Fernando
Judge

At Suva
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for Accused