Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

  Download original PDF

State v Rabuku [2019] FJHC 429; HAC299.2017S (13 May 2019)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 299 OF 2017S

STATE
Vs

1. TARAIASI WAQA RABUKU
2. ILAITIA SARAI
3. LORIMA KOROITAMANA
   

Counsels : Mr. E. Samisoni for State
Mr. R. Matebalavu for Accused No. 1.

Accused No. 2 in Person, but tried in absentia.

Ms. T. Kean and Ms. A. Prakash for Accused No. 3
Hearings : 6,7,8,9 and 10 May, 2019.
Summing Up : 13 May, 2019.
Judgment : 13 May 2019.

______________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________

1. The three assessors had returned with a unanimous opinion finding both accuseds guilty as charged on count no. 1 and 2.
2. Obviously, the three assessors had accepted the prosecution’s version of events. It also meant they had accepted the prosecution’s witnesses’ evidence.
   
3. I had reviewed the evidence called in the trial and I had directed myself in accordance with the summing up I delivered today to the assessors.
   
4. The three assessors’ opinion was not perverse. It was open to them to reach such conclusion on the evidence.
   
5. Assessors are there to assist the trial judge come to a decision on whether or not the accuseds were guilty as charged. The assessors’ views represent the public view and in my view, it must be treated with respect.
   
6. Like the assessors, I accept the prosecution’s version of events. For Accused No. 2, I accept the evidence of PW3, the police officer, who caution interviewed him on 7 and 8 October, 2017. I accept PW3’s evidence that Accused No. 2 gave his caution interview statements voluntarily and out of his own free will. I find that Accused No. 2 confessed to the crimes in count no. 1 and 2, alleged against him. I find that his confessions were true.
   
7. As for Accused No. 3, I accept the evidence of PW1. I accept that she identified Accused No. 3 at the crime scene at the material time. In terms of the R v Turnbull rule, her identification of Accused No. 3 at the crime scene committing the crimes in count no. 1 and 2 were of a high quality and I accept the same. I find she identified Accused No. 3 correctly and I accept her evidence.
   
8. Given the above, I accept the three assessors’ unanimous opinion on both count no. 1 and 2, and I find Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 guilty as charged on count no. 1 and 2 and I convict them accordingly.
   
9. Assessors thanked and released.
   

Salesi Temo

JUDGE

Solicitor for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.
Solicitor for the Accused No. 1: R. Matebalavu, Barrister & Solicitor, Suva.

Solicitor for the Accused No. 2: In Person, but tried in absentia.
Solicitor for the Accused No. 3: Legal Aid Commission, Suva.