IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT
SITTING AT NAUSORI 
							           Criminal Case No. 192 of 2015

State

v

Abaramo Yamoyamo 	

Prosecution		:    Ms Serukai
Accused 	:   Present – In Person  

Voir Dire - Ruling
The defence has challenged the admissibility of the caution interview of the accused. They submitted that it was unfairly and involuntarily obtained. 

The Burden and the Legal Test
Justice Madigan in State v Temo [2012] FJHC 1122; HAC60.2011 (22 May 2012) stated that “the test in assessing whether an interview is admissible in evidence is whether it was made voluntarily or not, obtained without oppression or unfairness and not obtained in breach of the suspect's Constitutional (now read Common Law) rights. The burden of proving that the statement was obtained voluntarily, without oppression or unfairness and in accordance with common law rights is on the Prosecution and that burden remains on the State throughout. The standard is of course beyond reasonable doubt. I have kept these tests and the burden uppermost in my mind in deciding on this application by the State.” This Court has noted the guidelines and the tests as pronounced by his Lordship and works on the basis of this guideline.  
The Evidence
The Prosecution called 3 witnesses.  The accused gave evidence and no other witnesses were called by the accused. 

The evidence of the accused person was that “had no option but to admit to allegations. Pleaded guilty to everything. The whole lot of them question me. I came for lunch. After lunch they changed persons. Who did interview. He came and punched me. He was hitting my nose. … they took me to hospital. Medical was with me… I came to Court had no chance to speak was remanded in custody.”
The Police Officer denied the allegation of assault. No medical examination report as confirmed in Court was tendered by the accused. The Court notes that the accused appeared in Court on 5th March 2015 and he did not have any visible injuries. Nor he complained to the Court. 
The Court noted from the evidence of the witnessing officer to the caution interview that the accused was treated well and he gave his answers voluntarily. The Court believes the police officers and The Court having seen the accused within 48 hours did not note any visible injuries or distress on the accused. The accused did not complain of any assault when he appeared first before this Court.
The Court finds that the caution interview was fairly conducted and the accused answered the questions without any coercion or threats to him by any person. The caution interview is admitted in evidence.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
7/12/2015