High Court of Fiji

12. In some crimes like a bank robbery we have direct evidence of a passer-by seeing a masked man rush into the bank; or from a teller who is frightened so much that he hands over the money. In many cases however where there is no direct evidence, we have evidence of certain circumstances or certain documents which when put together will lead to a sure conclusion that the accused whose case you are looking at committed the crime.

13. Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful evidence, but it is important that you examine it with care, and consider whether the evidence upon which the prosecution relies in proof of its case is reliable and whether it does prove guilt. Furthermore before convicting on circumstantial evidence you should consider whether it reveals any other circumstances which are or may be of sufficient reliability and strength to weaken or destroy the prosecution case. Finally, you should be careful to distinguish between arriving at conclusions based on reliable circumstantial evidence, and mere speculation. Speculation in a case amounts to no more than guessing or making up theories without good evidence to support them and neither you nor anybody else should do that.

14. In the case of the first accused and the second accused they each face more than one charge. You must look at each charge separately. Taking the first accused for example, he faces three charges or counts. Just because you may think he is guilty of one count does not mean that he is necessarily guilty of the others and similarly with a finding of not guilty.

15. You have the charge document in front of you. In Fiji we call this formally, the "Information".

Counts One and Two on the Information charge the first accused and the second accused with Bribery of Public Officials and with Receiving a bribe respectively.

Bribery is the unlawful provision to a person of a benefit of some kind, with the intention that that person will be influenced by that benefit to act in the interests of the donor. Specifically for the purposes of this trial and for Charge 1 against the first accused, FICAC must prove to you so that you are sure,

1. That it was this person, that is Feroz Jan Mohammed, who,
2. Without lawful authority or reasonable excuse,
3. Provided a benefit to another, (and in this case FICAC says the benefit was money), and
4. That other was a public official, and
5. By doing that he intended to influence that public official in the exercise of his duties as a public official.
   

16. As a mirror image of that charge the second accused faces a similar charge, the second count, accusing him of receiving such a benefit. For that charge the prosecution must prove to you so that you are sure;

1. That it was the second accused, who
2. Without lawful authority or reasonable excuse
3. Received a benefit (i.e. money) from the first accused, and,
4. he was a public official, and
5. By receiving that money, the second accused intended that his official duties as a public official would be influenced.
   

17. To put it more simply Ladies and Gentlemen, the first accused is accused of making payments to the second accused, a public official in the Department of National Roads, with the intention that the second accused would in his official capacity do things which would be to the first accused's advantage.

18. And similarly the second accused is charged with receiving that money from the first accused with the intention that he would, in his official capacity, favour the first accused.

19. I shall now turn to the evidence that the prosecution says proves that charge and I shall then remind you of what the first accused and the second accused persons say in their defence to the two charges.

20. There is no dispute between the prosecution and the defence that money did pass from the first accused to the second accused. Some of it went by TMO (actioned by Azim), some of it by Bank of Baroda cash transfers through Ashif and Vaseva. It is also very clear from the evidence that Iliesa Turagacati was in the employment of the Fiji Government as a civil servant and thereby a Government Official. What is in dispute is the reason for that money being transferred. The prosecution says it was a bribe to persuade the second accused to make further irregular and unjustifiable progress payments to TF Jan. The second accused tells us that it was his understanding that the two men in whose names the TMO payments were made were owed royalty payments by the first accused for the use of their land and logs, and they had asked that these moneys be sent on to him, their nominee. The second accused says that they owed him this money for fish they had bought from him. We have no evidence of this from the first accused or his witnesses and you will remember that the two men in question, Mawalu and Qio said that they didn't know the second accused and had nothing to do with fish; so it is a matter you must decide if the State has proved the charge to you beyond reasonable doubt.

21. The evidence that these monies were bribes given by the first accused and accepted as such by the second accused is entirely circumstantial. You may want to consider the underhand way in which the payments were made. They were originally sent by TMO until the Post Office began asking questions, and then by subterfuge through deliveries by third parties. There is evidence that on delivery of their "consignments" these third parties were given cheques for payments to T F Jan. FICAC also invite you to consider the fact that the bigger the overpayment being made, the bigger the "reward".

22. The accomplice Azim tells us that all the monies sent to Turagacati were sent on the instructions of the first accused and were generated by TF Jan cheques signed by him.

23. In addition there is the evidence of the Vodafone call records showing that on the days of the payments to the second accused, there were calls passing between the 1st accused, the second accused, and the party delivering the cash .

24. Another piece of evidence you may consider is that where we have seen in earlier years that it took some weeks for payments to be made after claims were made, allowing for checking, verification etc., a few of the alleged fraudulent payments were made within days of receipt of the claim and in the case of payment voucher #40851 the payment (including an overpayment of $150,000) was made on the same day that the invoices were emailed to the second accused from Ranjana, giving very little time, FICAC says for all the necessary signatures and checks. Out of the 14 payments that make up this alleged unsupportable $3m, 12 of the payments include large overpayments, over and above the supporting documents.

25. You have seen Mr Tora's flow charts which purport to link overpayments and unsubstantiated payments made to TFJan, to link them in time to the cash payments made to Turagacati. The prosecution says that this is clear evidence that the second accused who was a public official was favouring the first accused's company by these payments in return for monies paid to him by that company.

26. You will bear in mind the defence position of course that the monies were royalty money due to Mawalu and Qio but they had instructed that these royalties be sent to the second accused to pay for fish they had bought from him.

27. This raises the "reasonable excuse" element that I referred to earlier. There is no evidence that the two parties, (that is the 1st and 2nd accused) had any lawful authority to give or accept benefits so we can discount that part. However the first and second accused have throughout the trial relied upon what they claim is the "reasonable excuse" of diverting royalty payments due to Mosese and to Qio to Iliesa, the second accused, in payment of monies owing to him for fish that he had sold to them. I direct you in law that this defence has been properly raised by the defence and that being so, it creates a burden on the prosecution to disprove it. There has been much evidence adduced before you about the purported fish business between Iliesa and Mawalu and Qio. The second accused in his evidence and the first accused through affirmative cross-examination have sought to persuade you that there was indeed a genuine business with the ultimate purchaser in the chain being the enigmatic Mr. Aghar Ali. The prosecution have in turn called evidence which they say disproves this fish business. It is one of your tasks Ladies and Gentlemen to decide where the truth lies. If you think that there was an arrangement whereby the first accused was sending money due to Mosese and Qio to the second accused or you think there might have been such an arrangement that you must find the first and second accused not guilty of Count 1 and Count 2 respectively. If you do not believe the fish business excuse however and therefore you do not believe that there was a consequential financial arrangement between the parties to pay for the fish then that can be another element that the prosecution has proved to you beyond reasonable doubt if you think so.

28. If you have discounted the fish business, then you must move on to determine the final element in these two charges that the prosecution need prove to you so that you are sure that is, that the payments made and received were payments made by Feroz to encourage Iliesa to pay him on false invoices and/or to make large overpayments to him and as a corollary Iliesa in accepting the rewards not only intended, but effected processes that paid out on those false invoices 85% of which included large unsubstantiated overpayment. You may find that Mr. Frank Tora's schedules are useful in this regard, schedules which show increased rewards for larger overpayments, the payments to Iliesa co-inciding with the issue of cheques. It is all evidence for you to analyse along with the defence evidence.

29. Now the first accused did not give evidence, and that is his right. He was not obliged to give evidence. He is entitled to sit in the dock and require the prosecution to prove its case. He does not have to prove his innocence. The fact that he has not given evidence proves nothing one way or the other. It does nothing to establish his guilt. He has however exercised his right to call witnesses on his behalf. You must take what they say into account when assessing the case against him.

30. I must now direct you that matters put to a witness in cross-examination and denied, are not evidence. Nor is counsel's speech, evidence. So the only evidence you can take into account in favour of the first accused are affirmative answers given in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of his witnesses, the present wages clerk, Ms. Shameem, the Forensic Accountant from Australia, and Mr. Muktah Ali.

31. You will have heard the second accused agree with Mr. Lloyd that Mawalu and Qio met with him (the 2nd acc.) and the first accused and it was agreed that royalties owing to the two villagers should be sent to the second accused. That is admissible evidence for you to consider. You may either accept it or reject it.

32. You will remember that the accountant said that in his opinion all the monies paid to the first accused were monies due and payable under the contract. That is something you must take into account. Mr. Muktah Ali gave evidence to say that FICAC is in error in alleging that the work claimed for was not done. He presented to you his reconciliation sheets showing how he remembered the TFJan workers were employed on the project. Although Mr. Aslam has tried to show you how Muktah Ali cannot be relied upon in that opinion, you may think well "so what?" What about the forged invoices that go with those day works claims?"

33. The second set of charges concern the funds being paid from the Fiji Roads Authority (formerly called the Department of National Roads) to T.F. Jan Bulldozing Company Limited. In this summing up I refer to them as "DNR" and "TFJan" respectively.

34. The evidence for these charges really flows on from the evidence presented by FICAC to prove the first two charges by the prosecution and again the evidence presented by the defence to disprove the charges. Mr. Lloyd QC has referred to the third charge as the "main charge" and in many respects I suppose it is, although any charge against a particular accused will be regarded by that accused as a "main charge". The amount alleged to have been falsely paid out to the first accused is over $3m, which is a very large sum, but I must warn you that you must not be influenced by the size of the sum said to be overpaid. It would still be a crime if it were $100 overpaid if proved, so you will not let the large sum act to the prejudice of the first accused.

The Third Count

35. In this third charge, the first accused has been charged with obtaining a financial advantage from DNR without justification, the advantage being the sum of $3,132,773.73.

36. To find this charge proved beyond reasonable doubt you must find proved the following elements of the offence:

1. That it was this accused, who
2. Engaged in conduct, and
3. As a result of that conduct obtained a financial advantage for TFJan, and
4. The accused in doing that knew or believed that TFJan was not eligible to receive that financial advantage.
   

37. Ladies and Gentlemen; a major part of this trial was spent by the prosecution in adducing evidence relating to this charge. They have put before you evidence of 14 separate payments made to TFJan between 27th January 2012 and 12th July 2012, along with supporting documents that purport to substantiate and verify those payments. The prosecution have taken you through hundreds of documents, including delivery notes, invoices, time sheets, weekly time summaries, memos and Interim Payment Certificates. They have called witnesses who were familiar with the generating of the originals of those documents and they told us that they were all bogus, forgeries, copies or unjustified. There are so many documents that I am not going to burden you with taking you through each one again. You have heard the evidence and looked at the individual documents. You are well aware of what the allegations of the prosecution are about these documents.

38. For the defence, you heard evidence from the first accused's witness Muktah Ali who says that all the work that the time sheets and day work claims attest to, was done. You must consider that evidence along with the prosecution evidence and decide whether you think that the claims made by the first accused were genuine or not.

39. There is the evidence of the experts; Mr. Tora from FICAC and Mr. Goodyer, the Australian first accused's first witness, the Australian forensic accountant. It what can be regarded I suppose as the "battle of the experts", they have presented two different views of the accounts, views that you must examine and decide where the truth lies.

40. After the prosecutor had taken us through all the exhibits and presented witnesses to say that they were not genuine, Mr. Tora, the FICAC investigating accountant presented his summary charts showing what he calls the "money flow trails". In his exhibit,P.75, he provides a chart itemizing the total of the unverified invoices and after adding the total of the 12 overpayments, out of 14 payments, he arrives at the figure of $3.13 million referred to in the third count. This he opines was the unjustified amount paid to TFJan.

41. Mr. Goodyer, for the first accused tells us in his evidence that because of laxity within the systems and procedures of the DNR, the 1st accused was unable to tell which invoices he had submitted had been paid or not. He went on to add that the 12 overpayments were made to repay outstanding sums due. In fact in his own analysis of all the invoices and payment vouchers, his concluding opinion was that TFJan was still owed the sum of $522,000 by the DNR.

42. So you have two entirely different views of these invoices. You have heard all the prosecution witnesses tell of their creating fictitious invoices, of signing documents without justification, of processing payments without proper authority or without the proper checks and you are to contrast this with the defence evidence from the Australian accountant who says that there is money still owing, and Mr Muktah Ali who says that the supporting documents are genuine because he knows that the work was done. It's a big issue Ladies and Gentlemen, but it is your task to resolve it. If you think that what the accountant says and what Mr Ali say is true, or maybe true, then it is your duty to come back with the opinion of not guilty on this count.

Fourth Count

43. The fourth count charges the second accused with dishonestly causing a loss to DNR by causing unwarranted payments to a total of $3.13m to be made to TFJan. To find this charge proved against him, FICAC must have proved to you so that you are sure that:

• It was indeed Iliesa Turagacati, who
• Dishonestly and knowingly,
• Made unwarranted payments amounting to $3.13m to TFJan, which
• Caused a loss to DNR.
  

43. Once more the evidence from the bribery charges (Count 1 and Count 2) and in particular the evidence relating to Count 3 flows on into this charge.

44. By the time you come to look at this charge you will have analysed the evidence relating to Count 3 against the second accused, and so, you will have decided whether the payments that the first accused received were legitimate or not. If you have decided that the payments were legitimate and properly due to the first accused, then you must decide that there is not enough evidence for you to find the second accused guilty on this Count because the third element I have referred to above that is "made unwarranted payments" is not satisfied. However, in looking at this count and at this accused entirely separately; there are other important factors to be considered. There is no doubt that it is Iliesa in the dock facing the charge and if you find that the payments were illegal then the element of loss caused to the DNR is obvious. What you must move on to decide thereafter is whether there was dishonesty and knowledge on the part of the second accused.

45. Of course you all know what dishonesty is in the normal meaning of the word, but in law dishonesty has a specially defined meaning. The prosecution must make you sure that the second accused (and this will apply later to the third and fourth accused) was acting dishonestly. To find that you must decide two questions:

1. Was what the accused did (in passing these claims for payment)dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?In this regard you Ladies and Gentlemen must form your own judgment of what those standards are.
   
2. Must the accused himself have realized that what he was doing would be regarded as dishonest by those standards? In deciding this you must consider the accused's own state of mind at the time.
   

46. If, after taking into account all of the evidence, you are sure that the answers to both of these questions are YES, the element of dishonesty is proved. If you are not sure of that, the element of dishonesty is not proved and the accused is then entitled to be found not guilty.

47. In addition to dishonesty you must find on the fourth count that Iliesa knew or believed that his acts would cause a loss to the DNR. Our law says that a person has knowledge of a result if he is aware that that result will exist in the ordinary course of events.

48. Apart from actual knowledge, knowledge can also include willfully shutting one's eyes to the obvious; willfully and recklessly failing to make such enquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, knowledge of circumstances which would indicate the facts to an honest and reasonable man; and knowledge of circumstances which would put an honest and reasonable man on inquiry.

49. So in our case the prosecution must prove to you so that you are sure that for theCount Four, the second accused had knowledge that what he was doing was wrong and knowledge that what he was doing would lead to the DNR losing money. This knowledge you might find from direct evidence or from circumstantial evidence or a combination of the two. You can infer this knowledge even if you think there were deficiencies in the documents that would deter a normal honest person, but he nevertheless carried on regardless to approve the payments. It is all a matter for you.

50. Apart from the evidence of the prosecution you must take into account Mr. Turagacati's evidence. He told us that he thought that all the claims were in order that he acted on the prior approval of the Director of Roads and thought that the signatures of The Director and of Mr. Naidu in the West were genuine. He said it was quite possible to get the IPCs created and signed off in a day after receiving the claims, even the emailed claims. If you think that what he said was true or might have been true, then it would be your duty to find him not guilty on this charge. However if you do not believe him, you must still find that the prosecution has proved their case on this count beyond reasonable doubt before you can find him guilty.

51. The second accused called a witness, Mr. Agha Khan, the businessman from Ba. He said that he met the second accused a couple of months before the trial when Iliesa was looking for the person who bought fish from Mawalu and Qio. He said he was the man who did - he had a superette attached to his service station and he sold fish, especially fish heads there. He knew Mawalu and Qio because he used to cash cheques for them - cheques from TF Jan. They had come to him with a proposal to buy their fish that they could source from From Suva. After working the figures he decided that he could profit from the business and agreed to their proposal. Every time they delivered fish, he would pay them cash. In cross examination he admitted that he was a friend of the first accused and his loan of $30,000 from the Bank of Baroda was even guaranteed by the first accused. That was the evidence of Mr. Khan on behalf of the second accused. It was for you to accept or reject when you are deciding if you believe the second accused's fish business excuses.

Fifth Count

52. The fifth count is a charge against the third accused of Causing Loss of $3.13m to DNR by approving the same payments that the second accused was charged with in Count 4.

53. Now again I remind you of the implications of Mr. Tamanitoakula not giving evidence. It is his right not to do so, and you must not think any less of him or the charge against him for the very fact that he did not go into the witness box.

54. The prosecution evidence shows that the 3rd accused was the overall head of the accounts division of DNR. It was his responsibility not only to authorize the payment of claims, but to check to see whether the claims were legitimately owing and to make enquiries should the claim raise any doubts. The evidence shows that of the 14 payments we have been looking at over these past weeks, 10 of them were certified as correct for payment by the third accused. All of these 10 payments contained overpayments in quite large amounts and the total authorized by him was approximately $2.46m, which is the sum more exactly referred to in the charge.

55. When he had approved these vouchers for payment, he would pass the documents on to the accounts clerical staff for the final processing and the raising of the cheque to pay the claim. Two of those clerks, PW15Ms. Cokanasiga and PW16 Ms. Saurara, told us that they at times had their suspicions about the claims that they had been asked to process. Both raised their doubts with the third accused and both were rebuffed. Mrs. Cokanasiga even went so far as to put her concerns and suggested reforms into an email she sent to the third accused. You have seen the email. She says that the third accused merely asked her to bring the documents but did nothing further.

56. When Ms. Saurara was brought in to accounts to help to clear payment of outstanding amounts, she had a list of what the Department considered to be outstanding and when she queried backdated payments which were not on her list, she raised the matter both with the second accused and with the third accused. She said that thesecond accused told her that some outstanding payment records were incomplete and he wrote a Memo to her requesting her to pay and the third accused would endorse the vouchers with the words "AAO please pay".

57. This is all evidence for you to consider against the third accused. Unfortunately there is no defence evidence to contradict or explain this evidence. As you did for the second accused in the fourth count, you must also examine the questions of dishonesty and knowledge. Remember that the test for dishonesty is a two part test. Would the ordinary reasonable man or woman think that what the third accused was doing was dishonest? If the answer to that is yes, did the accused think that what he was doing at the time was dishonest?

58. It is a matter for you to judge the reasonable man test, but unfortunately we have no evidence to say what the third accused was thinking so you must judge that limb of dishonesty on the evidence of others and on the circumstances. Mr. Vosarogo says that there is not one jot of evidence that he would have realized that what he was doing was dishonest, but that submission of course ignores the circumstantial evidence surrounding his role and actions at the relevant time. The prosecution evidence was crying out for explanation from the third accused, but that was not forthcoming.

He exercised his legal rights not to give evidence nor call witnesses and we cannot think less of him for doing that, however it does not help us in assessing his honesty or dishonesty at the time. It now becomes your task Ladies and Gentlemen to decide what would have been going through his mind at the time. If you think he was not being dishonest on the two limb test or that he might have not been dishonest on that test, you will find him not guilty.

59. With all the prosecution evidence you must find that the accused was aware (or had knowledge that) what he was doing would cause a loss to DNR. If you find, after applying the relevant tests, that he was dishonest and if you find that the claims were fraudulent, then I do not think you will have any trouble with the question of knowledge.

60. And if you believe that in the circumstances the only inference is that he knew what he was doing was dishonest and the reasonable man would have thought it dishonest, then you may find him guilty of the count.

Sixth and Seventh Counts

61. The fourth accused is charged in the sixth count with dishonestly causing a risk of loss to the DNR of $95, 773 and in the seventh count of dishonestly causing that a risk of loss to the DNR of $315,447. I remind you once more that you must look at each of these charges separately.

62. To find these charges proved, you must find proved, so that you are sure,

1. That it was indeed Aisea Liwaionowho
2. Dishonestly
3. Caused a risk of loss to DNR (or FRA) and
4. He knew or believed that there was a substantial risk that loss would occur to DNR by his acts.
   

I am sure that it will not trouble you that in both charges the proper person (whom I will refer to as "Aisea")is in the dock.

63. It is the prosecution's case that Aisea was the on-site engineer representing the DNR in this Nausori Highlands project. As such he was well aware of the verification of claims procedure because he would have been on site countless times with the site supervisor and the compliance officer, both of TFJan, verifying the work done. In fact he even admits in his interview under caution (at Q.40) that he was well aware of the procedure and he describes it there in detail. Direct evidence is before us that he was present in the First Accused's Office on the day when these forged documents were being signed. Esala says that he sat next to him and signed them, and he admits in his caution interview that he was there and signed them without inspection. The reasons he gives in his caution interview are that he did it "mistakenly" and also that he had never had training on howto sign invoices. He ultimately admitted that it was not proper for him to sign without verification and that the work had not been done.

64. I have already directed you on the two limbed test of dishonesty and this applies again of course with these two charges. It is a matter for you whether you think that the reasonable man would regard Aisea's actions as dishonest or not. If you decide yes then there is no direct evidence before you as to whether Aisea thought what he did was dishonest or not, apart from the circumstances surrounding the signing and his answers in the cautioned interview which are not disputed. You may think that his admission that the work was not done and that it was wrong for him to sign without verification, satisfies you as to the second limb of the dishonesty test.

65. Ms. Leweni asks you to consider that the caution interview is not accurate. She points out that, having seen a video of two small parts of the interview, the answers of Aisea were not properly recorded and there was no description of the documents being shown to him. This is a matter for you to consider Ladies and Gentlemen. If you think that the record of caution interview before you is not an accurate record of what transpired during the actual interview, then you will give it little weight in coming to your opinions on the two charges he faces. If however you think that the answers that he gave were truthful, then you may rely on it as evidence in the normal way and give it the weight you think fit.

66. It then becomes a matter of examining the circumstantial evidence surrounding those acts of signing to help you to decide whether he was causing a risk that the documents might be used to make unwarranted claims on the DNR, thereby causing a loss to that Department.

67. The prosecution say that a man of his seniority and experience cannot have been blind to the consequences of what he was being asked to do that day and that the surrounding circumstances make it obvious that he was well aware that by signing documents he knew to be false could lead to a bogus claim being made.

68. Ms. Leweni says that there is no evidence whatsoever before you to enable you to make a finding on his dishonesty.

69. I ask you to put from your minds immediately her submission that he may have been asleep in TFJan's office. That is nothing but speculation, and none of us are going to speculate on evidence unknown to any of us.

70. The eighth and last count on the Information is Perverting the Course of Justice.

This charge is against the first accused and only the first accused. To find him guilty of this count you must find proved the following elements:

1. That it was the first accused, who
2. Did anything at all to pervert or attempt to pervert the course of justice, and
3. By doing so he intended to pervert the course of justice.
   

71. You have heard and seen the evidence from Azim who told us that the first accused dictated a Memo which purports to ask him about the TMOs he was sending to Suva. He further says that Feroz Jan drafted a Statutory Declaration which he asked him to prepare and have it formally declared before a local Commissioner of Oaths.

72. Mr. Lloyd for the first accused asks you to believe that it was a declaration of Azim's own making, he knowing the facts which are the content of the declaration. Azim says that it is untrue but he was forced to make it. He says that the "boss" (Feroz) told him he wanted it for the office records. This "pressure" (if indeed you find that there was pressure) on Azim to tell a false story is enough to find an attempt to perjure if you believe all the background facts

73. It is quite clear from the evidence that the first accused knew at the time that the many TMO payments to Iliesa were being called into question, and the Prosecution say that this fact in itself may impute a different reason to the first accused for having this Statutory Declaration made.

74. The FICAC officer, Mr Abdul Raheem (PW26) told the Court that on the day he interviewed the first accused, he (1st acc.) gave him the statutory declaration voluntarily at the end of the interview, without saying anything.

75. This act in itself is enough to amount to an intention to commit perjury, if you find the facts to be proven. It would certainly put the lie to his stated intention to Azim to keep the declaration for his company records.

76. All of this of course is predicated on you disbelieving the "Mawalu and Qio excuse". If you do believe the "royalty/fish excuse" mounted by the first and second accused then obviously the declaration is in fact true and you would have to come back with a finding of not guilty on the first accused for this charge.

77. Well, Ladies and Gentleman, that is all I want to say to you about the law and the evidence. You may now retire and consider your opinions. You will be individually asked your opinions for each accused in turn. It would be best if you could be all agreed but if that is not possible, I will hear your opinions nevertheless. Please tell one of my clerks when you are ready and I will reconvene the Court.

78. Remember that the first accused says he was entitled to these monies for work he had done but hadn't been paid for.

79. Remember the second accused says that the payments he received were for fish he had sold to Mawalu and Qio.

80. Remember that the third and fourth accused say that there is no evidence that they acted dishonestly.

81. And above all, remember that you can't find anybody guilty unless you are sure of it.

82. Redirections Counsel?

P.K. Madigan
Judge

At Suva
19 June, 2015