IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 2916 of 2002

STATE

V

PATRICK FONG

For Prosecution: Sgt. Simpson
Accused: In Person.

JUDGMENT

The accused has been charged with Robbery with Violence under S.293 (1) (a) of the Penal Code.

The Prosecution relies solely on the confession given by the accused which has been accepted by this court as voluntarily given and exhibited as evidence. 

The prosecution facts are on 31st March 2002 four accused went in a vehicle to the Town House Hotel. A driver remained in the car whilst 3 others, masked and armed with empty bottles and cane knives entered the reception area. They smashed bottles first to intimidate those at reception.

The receptionist was held by neck with a broken bottle to her neck by one of the men. The knives were swung around to scare others present. Two went into office and robbed the cash of $573. They also took the bag of the receptionist and some guest’s bags under safe custody at the hotel’s office. The cheques were left behind. They threw bottles and left in the awaiting vehicle No. CE380.

No one was identified as they wore balaclavas. The accused was arrested in another case when he confessed to police regarding the present case.

The accused elected to remain silent. He gave an unsworn statement for the purposes of trial within trial.

In absence of any direct evidence; the prosecution therefore relies solely on the admission by accused in the caution interview tendered.

The question for this court is; Can a confession alone be sufficient evidence for prosecution to rely upon in a serious charge as this one? In the old authorities of R –v- Sullivan (1887) 16 104 347 and R –v- Sykes 1938 CR. L. R. 233 it was held " A voluntary confession of guilt is sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborative evidence.

In R –v- Baldry the court however agreed it’s not a principle of universal or general application, that a conviction wholly or mainly resting on oral confession could never be safe or satisfactory. It must in every case be a question to be decided on the facts.

The Fiji Court of Appeal has accepted and applied the above in State –v- Rasaciva Cr. Ap. No. 48/97 that a voluntary confession found to be true is sufficient to warrant a conviction.

In the present case the accused states the vehicle used was blue with registration CE something. He has admitted being armed with empty bottles and knives. Also that they wore balaclavas. 

He said on return the men carried a dark bag. He was driver and remained in the awaiting vehicle. He said he parked the car "little ahead of the hotel."

The receptionist described the events of the day in her sworn statement. In her evidence similarities as to the facts were:

1.	Car came and parked in front away from hotel.

2.	It was dark blue ‘CE’ car

3.	Driver remained and 3 masked men arrived with bottles and cane knives came to reception.

4.	Took away her black bag.

I find the confession given by the accused to be true and proved. He could not have given all the descriptions and happenings of the robbery with such precise details unless he was present there.

Considering this is a serious charge of Robbery with Violence I am mindful of some corroborative evidence when the complainant’s evidence which has no identification of accused.

I have considered the evidence of the complainant receptionist. I accept her evidence as credible and believe her to be a truthful witness who can be relied upon.

The accused’s statement also corroborates the prosecution case in particulars I have considered in this judgment earlier. It’s noteworthy that even after some 8 months lapse between the robbery and the confession, the accused’s interview supported the prosecution case in some materials particular.

I find the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I find the accused guilty as charged.

Dated this 15th day of February 2005. 

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE