IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: - 1513/2008

STATE

V

STANLEY SANJAY SUDHAKAR

For Prosecution : PC Yasin 
Accused  : In person 

Date of Hearing : 21st February 2014
Date of Ruling :21st February 2014

RULING ON VOIR DIRE

[1]	The accused is charged with one count of Found in Possession of Illicit Drugs contrary to section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act No. 09 of 2004.

[2]	The accused is objecting to his cautioned interview and the charge statement to be tendered in this main hearing. 

 [3] The grounds for objection were that there was no witnessing officer, the interview was taken on duress as at that time he was in remand for a murder case and the breach of Rules. 

 [4]	Voir dire hearing was conducted on 21st February 2014 and two police officers gave evidence. 

[5] PW1 was WPC Topaz who charged the accused. She said she gave all the rights to the accused and the accused did not complain about anything. She admitted in cross examination that there was no witnessing officer present due to the unavailability of the officers at that time. She also said she charged the accused 02 months after he was interviewed. 

[6] PW2, Pc Vijay conducted the interview of the accused and he also gave the accused his rights. There was an officer who witnessed the interview. As the accused was remanded in Suva prison at that time the interview was recorded there. The accused did not complain that he was in a stressful condition before the interview. 

[7] When asked by the Court the accused said he did not want to give evidence in the hearing.

[8]	After considering the evidence led by prosecution I think it would be appropriate to briefly look in to the relevant law with regard to the confessions. 

[9] The classic statement of the common law rule as to admissibility of confessions was that of Lord Summer in Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599 at 609: 

"It has been long been established ….. that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntarily statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority." (Murphy on Evidence 10th Edition at page 300) 

 [10]	In Fiji this was discussed in the case of Ganga Ram & Shiu Charan v Reginam Criminal, Appeal No. 46 of 1983 on 13/7/1984, where the Fiji Court of Appeal stated:

"It will be remembered that there are two matters each of which requires consideration in this area. 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 of 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 Ping 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. This is a matter of overriding discretion and one cannot specifically categorize the matters which might be taken into account".

[11]	Therefore the prosecution got the onus to prove that the statement was obtained voluntarily and without use of force, threats, oppression or any inducement.

[12] Also the prosecution needs to prove that the statements were obtained without any breaches of the accused's rights (Judges Rules) and if there were any breaches, there was no resulting prejudice to the accused. 

[13] The burden lies on the prosecution and standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. 

[14] Two witnesses denied there were any threats or any intimidation on the accused. After considering the evidence as well as the demeanors of the witnesses I am prepared to accept their version. 

[15] I do not find any evidence to show that the accused was under duress when he admitted this offence. Also I do not see any breach of Judges Rules that would affect the outcome of the statements. 

[16] Therefore I decide that the Cautioned Interview and the Charge Statement of the accused are admissible in the main hearing. 

21st February 2014

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva