IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
AT LAUTOKA

CRIMINAL CASE: HAC 121 OF 2014

BETWEEN :

STATE

AND :

NACANIELI VAKATAWA BAKATA

Counsel : Mr. A. Singh for the State 
: Accused in person 

Date of Hearing : 15th of March 2016
Date of Ruling : 16th of March 2016

RULING ON VOIR DIRE

1.	The prosecution proposes to adduce in evidence the caution interview of the accused person in this hearing of the charge of Manslaughter. The accused actually did not make any objection for it. Having considered the fact that the accused is unrepresented and is appearing in person, I direct the prosecution and the accused to conduct a trail within a trial in order to determine the admissibility of the caution interview of the accused person in evidence. Hence the voir dire hearing was conducted on 15th of March 2016. 

2.	The prosecution called three witnesses during the course of the voir dire hearing. The accused neither gave evidence on oaths nor called any other witnesses for the defence. Subsequent to the hearing, the learned counsel for the prosecution advised the court that he wishes not to make any submissions and replies on the evidence already adduced. The accused person made an oral submission. Having carefully considered the evidence presented during the voir dire hearing and the submissions of the accused person, I now proceed to pronounce my ruling as follows. 

3.	The Privy Council in Wong Kam –Ming v The Queen (1982) A.C. 247 at 261 has discussed the basic control over admissibility of statement, where it was held that; 

"The basic control over admissibility of statement are found in the evidential rule that an admission must be voluntary i.e. not obtained through violence, fear or prejudice, oppression, threats and promises or other improper inducements. See decision of LORD SUMNER in IBRAHIM v. R (1914-15) AER 874 at 877. It is to the evidence that the court must turn for an answer to the voluntariness of the confessions."

4.	The Fiji Court of Appeal in Shiu Charan v R (F.C.A. Crim. App. 46/83) has discussed the applicable test of admissibility of caution interview of the accused person at the trial, where it was held that 

"First, it must be established affirmatively by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary in the sense that they were not procured by improper practices such as the use of force, threats or prejudice or inducement by offer of some advantage - what has been picturesquely described as "the flattery of hope or the tyranny of fear." Ibrahim v R (1914) AC 599. DPP v Pin Lin (1976) AC 574.  Secondly even if such voluntariness is established there is also need to consider whether the more general ground of unfairness exists in the way in which the police behaved, perhaps by breach of the Judges Rules falling short of overbearing the will, by trickery or by unfair treatment. Regina v Sang (1980) AC 402, 436 @ c - E." (State v Rokotuiwai - [1996] FJHC 159; Hac0009r.95s (21 November 1996).

5.	It appears that the test enunciated in Shiu Charan (supra) constitutes two components. The first is the test of oppression. The court is required to satisfy that the statement in the caution interview had been taken without any form of force, threats, intimidation, or inducement by offer of any advantage. The second component is that, even though the court is satisfied that the statement has been given voluntarily without any form of threat, force, intimidation or inducement, it is still required to satisfy that no any general grounds of unfairness existed before or during the recording of the caution interview. 

6.	The prosecution presented the evidence of the arresting officer in order to establish that the accused was properly arrested. The arresting officer stated in his evidence that the accused was arrested inside of his room at his house. He had to forcefully open the door of the room as the accused did not respond to the calling of the police officers. The wife of the accused was also present inside the room at the time of his arrest. The accused was explained the reason for his arrest and his rights. The arresting officer has observed that the accused had an injury on the back of his head. 

7.	During the cross examination, the accused asked the arresting officer whether he was unconscious at the time of the arrest, for which the officer reply negatively. 

8.	The officer who conducted the caution interview of the accused stated in his evidence that the accused was taken to the hospital prior to the commencement of the recording of his caution interview. The accused had received adequate medical treatment for his injuries at the hospital. The accused appeared fit for the interview. The accused person continuously cross examined the interviewing officer regarding the fact that he did not ask him whether he was physically fit to conduct the interview. The interviewing officer stated that he found the accused was fit to continue with the caution interview. The interviewing officer stated that the accused was properly given his rights prior to and also during the course of recording of his caution interview. 

9.	The accused opted not to give any evidence for the defence. 

10.	Having carefully considered the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is my opinion that the accused was not assaulted or unfairly treated during the time of his arrest. Moreover, it is my opinion that the accused has given his answers in the caution interview voluntarily and without the existence of any form of unfairness. I accordingly allow the prosecution to adduce in evidence the record of the caution interview of the accused. 

R. D. R. ThusharaRajasinghe
Judge

At Lautoka
16th of March 2016

Solicitors : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Respondent,
Accused in person