IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 006 OF 2016LAB

STATE

V

JONE SERU

Counsels	:	Mr. R. Kumar for State  
			Accused in Person

Hearings	:	17, 18, 19 and 20 July, 2017
Summing Up	:	21 July, 2017
Judgment	:	24 July, 2017

JUDGMENT

1.	On 18 July 2017, the following information was put to the accused:

	Statement of Office (a)

		CULTIVATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS: Contrary to section 5 (a) and Schedule 1 of 		the Illicit Drugs Control Act of 2004.

	Particulars of Offence (b)

		JONE SERU between the 1st day of October 2011 and the 8th day of February 		2012 at 	Savusavu in the Northern Division, without lawful authority cultivated 		5500 grams or 5.5 kilograms of illicit drugs namely cannabis sativa.

2.	He had previously waived his right to counsel and said he would represent himself. The 	information was read and explained to him.  He said he understood the same.  He pleaded not 	guilty to the information.  In other words, he disputed the allegation against him.

3.	The matter then went to trial before myself and three assessors.  The trial went on for four 	days.  I delivered my summing up to the assessors on 21 July 2017 and later they retired to 	deliberate on the matter.  After 25 minutes, they returned with a unanimous opinion.  All three 	assessors were of the opinion that the accused was guilty as charged.

4.	As it was Friday afternoon on 21 July 2017, I adjourned to Monday to deliver my judgment.  It 	was obvious that the assessors had accepted the prosecution’s version of events.  This meant 	that they had found the prosecution’s witnesses’s evidence credible, and had accepted their 	evidence.

5.	I have reviewed the evidence called in the trial and I have directed myself in accordance with 	the summing up I gave the assessors on 21 July 2017.  The assessors’ verdict was not 	perverse.  It was open to them to reach such conclusion on the evidence.

6.	Assessors are there to assist the trial judge come to a decision on whether or not the accused 	was guilty as charged.  On my analysis of the evidence, I accept the three assessors’ guilty 	opinion.  Like the assessors, I find all the prosecution’s witnesses’ evidence credible, and I 	accept them.

7.	I accept PC 4799 Peter Pickering (PW1) evidence that he found the accused hiding behind a 	huge rain tree log, which was inside his cannabis sativa plant’s farm on 8 February 2012.  I 	accept PW1’s evidence that he later chased and arrested the accused.  I accept PW1 and PC 	4272 Inia Cagilevu’s (PW2) evidence that they later uprooted 20 cannabis sativa plants from 	the accused’s farm, and the same were later taken to Savusavu Police Station.  I accept 	Corporal 2753 Lesley Miller’s (PW3) evidence that he escorted the accused to Savusavu Police 	Station on 8 February 2012 from the drug farm.

8.	I accept SC 1883 Badal Lal’s (PW6) evidence that he took the above cannabis sativa plants to 	Koronivia Research Station on 9 February 2012 for analysis by the Government Analyst Ms. 	Miliakere Nawaikula (PW5).  I accept PW5’s evidence that the plants she analyzed were 	cannabis sativa and weighted 5.5 kilograms.  I accept that the evidence that PW5 gave in court 	had proved to me beyond reasonable doubt that the copies of the “certificate of analysis” 	(Prosecution Exhibit No. 2) and “Analysis of Cannabis” (Prosecution Exhibit No. 3) she 	produced in court is a true and faithful reproduction of the original; the original had been lost 	and a search had not recovered the same.  She was the one who wrote the original in her own 	handwriting and she appeared to say that her handwriting and signatures had not been 	tampered with.  Consequently, in paragraph 27 of my summing up, I ruled Prosecution Exhibits 	No. 2 and 3 as admissible evidence.

9.	Finally, I accept PC 3553 Madigibuli Baleisuva’s (PW4) evidence when he caution 	interviewed 	the accused on 8 and 9 February 2012 at Savusavu Police Station.   He said, he asked the 	accused 37 questions and he gave 37 answers.   I accept PW4’s evidence that  he 	gave the accused all his legal rights and his right to counsel.  I accept PW4’s evidence that he 	formally cautioned the accused and gave him the standard rest and meal breaks.  I accept 	PW4’s 	evidence that the accused fully confessed to the crime during the interview.  I accept 	that the 	accused gave his confessions voluntarily and out of his own free will, and the same 	were the truth.

10.	Given the above, I accept the three assessors’ unanimous guilty opinion and I find the accused 	guilty as charged.  I convict him accordingly.

								Salesi Temo
								JUDGE

Solicitor for the State		:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Labasa
Solicitor for the Accused	:	In Person