IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 42 of 2017

THE STATE

V

TEVITA RASUAKI

Counsels:		Mrs. A. Vavadakua for the State
			Mr. H. Robinson for the Accused

Date of Trial: 		21 August 2018
Date of Summing Up: 	22 August 2018
Date of Judgment:  	22 August 2018

JUDGMENT

1.	The accused was tried before this court on the following two 	counts.

FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence
	
	CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION: Contrary to Section 375(1) (a) (i) 	and (iv) of the Crimes Act 2009.

Particulars of Offence

	TEVITA RASUAKI, on 20 April 2017, at Kanakana Village, 	Tunuloa in the Northern Division, without lawful excuse, 	threatened UM with injury to her person, with intent to cause 	alarm to UM.

SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence
	
	RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (b) of the Crimes Act 	2009.

Particulars of Offence

	TEVITA RASUAKI, on 20 April 2017, at Kanakana Village, 	Tunuloa in the Northern Division, penetrated the vagina of UM, 	with his finger, without her consent.

2.	After being directed as to the appropriate law and reminded of 	the facts in a Summing Up, three assessors returned with 	unanimous opinions of guilty on each of the two counts.

3.	The facts of the case as elicited at trial were that on the 20th 	April 2017, the accused approached the village house of his 	cousin UM. UM was at home alone looking after a toddler. 

4.	He was brandishing a knife and entering the house he took all 	of his clothes off and fondled UM’s breasts. All the time holding 	the knife, he made her lie down and he raped her with his 	fingers. She was dressed only in a towel as she had been on her 	way to bath when he arrived. He threatened to stab her or the 	toddler if she shouted. UM was able to take up the child and 	run to where her mother was working and tell her of the 	incident. 

5.	A medical examination the following day revealed recent injury 	to her genitals. 

6.	The prosecution called the victim UM, her mother to tell of 	recent complaint and the Medical Officer. 

7.	The victim UM gave confident and consistent evidence and she 	was unshaken in cross-examination. She dealt well with 	inconsistencies arising from a prior inconsistent statement.

8.	Her mother told of the anger and tears at the time UM arrived 	and said that she believed what she was told by her daughter.

9.	The accused gave evidence. He gave an odd explanation for his 	presence in the village that day. He said that he was there to 	look for a horse to work on his farm and not being able to find 	one he went to his friend James’ house to tell stories. 

10.	He called James as his witness. While confirming seeing the 	accused that day in the village, unfortunately James was not 	able to account for the accused’s movements for part of that 	morning and he contradicted the accused’s evidence about the 	presence of another friend at the time. 

11.	The witness was of no assistance to the accused.

12.	Of course the accused does not have to convince the Court of 	anything, nor does he have to prove anything. However I did not 	believe his evidence. 

13.	The State had not relied on the accused’s exculpatory caution at 	trial and unfortunately Counsel for the accused opened it up 	during cross-examination. It could be seen from that, that the 	accused had never before mentioned going to the village to look 	for a horse. His evidence in chief was the first time that was 	heard. 

14.	In not believing the evidence of the accused and with his 	witness discrediting him, there was nothing in the defence case 	to make the Court doubt the strength of the prosecution case. 

15.	The Court agrees with the unanimous opinions of the assessors 	and finds the accused guilty of both counts as charged.

16.	He is convicted on each count accordingly. 

17.	That is the Judgment of the Court.

		P. K. Madigan
		Judge
At Labasa
22 August 2018