IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 1624 of 2022

STATE

-v-

ISOA NATUI

Prosecution: Ms Naidu.M – for Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Mr Rayawa. A – Rayawa Legal
Date of trial: 22nd of September, 2025

Date of Judgement : 6th of February, 2026

JUDGEMENT  

1.	The accused pleaded not guilty to one count of abuse of office and the matter proceeded to trial.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
ABUSE OF OFFICE:  Contrary to Section 139 of the Crimes Act of 2009.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ISOA NATUI between the 19th of August, 2020 and the 29th of August, 2020 at Nabua in the Central Division whilst being employed in the Civil Service as a Superintendent of Police (Divisional Crime Officer/Southern) at Nabua Station did an arbitrary act in abuse of the authority of his office by directing WPC Anarieta Tukana (Exhibit Writer at Valelevu Police Station) to unlawfully release $8,064.50 cash money kept in the custody of Fiji Police Force as exhibit under exhibit no. RCE 624/17 vide PEP37/7/17 which was prejudicial to the rights of FIJI POLICE for gain.  

The Burden of Proof and the Standard of Proof

2.	Section 57 of the Crimes Act No. 44 of 2009 (Crimes Act) stipulates that the prosecution bears a legal burden of proving every element of an offence. The Section reads as follows:

(1)	The prosecution bears a legal burden of proving every element of an offence relevant to the guilt of the person charged.
(2)	The prosecution also bears a legal burden of disproving any matter in relation to which the defendant has discharged an evidential burden of proof imposed on the defendant.
(3) In this Decree (Act)—
"legal burden", in relation to a matter, means the burden of proving the existence of the matter.

3.	Section 58 (1) of the Crimes Act stipulates that a legal burden of proof on the prosecution must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Provisions and the Elements of the Offence
4.	The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements for the accused to be found guilty;

a)	During the specified time period (in this case between 19th of August, 2020 and the 29th of August, 2020);
b)	At Nabua, in the Central Division;
c)	Whilst being employed in the public service as a Superintendent of Police (Divisional Crime Officer/Southern) at Nabua Station;
d)	Did an arbitrary acts;
e)	In abuse of the authority of his office;
f)	And that the acts were done intentionally;
g)	And such acts were prejudicial to the rights of the Fiji Police Force; and
h)	The acts were done with malice or intention for a purpose of gain.
Case for the Prosecution
5.	Prosecution called 4 witnesses during the course of the trial to prove its case.

Evidence of Peni Tuivaga

6.	Stated that he is working with the Fiji Police Force for over 34 years and recalled that in 2021 he was based at the Valelevu Police Station. Witness further stated that in 2017 during a drug raid a substantial amount of cash was found, however to his recollection no was charged during the raid. According to the witness the cash found during the raid was in the sum of $8000.00 which was later classified as unclaimed money, since the ownership of this fund could not be determined. Witness stated with no ownership established the same money was supposed to be deposited into the government revenue account. However witness stated that this was not done in this case as the money was handed through a dispatch to the accused who informed him that this unclaimed money will be used to buy items such as computers and printers to assist the Southern Division Crimes Unit in doing their work in 2020 at the time of COVID pandemic. 

7.	In cross examination the witness agreed that the items were purchased by the accused from the unclaimed money and the same was used by the Southern Division Crimes Unit. In further cross examination the witness disagreed that that Fiji Police had resource problem during the time offence in 2020. 

PW 2 WPC Anaieta Tukana

8.	Stated that she was the exhibit writer in 2020 based at the Valelevu Police Station. According to this witness she testified that she received instructions from the accused to release the unclaimed money of around $8000.00 in order to buy equipment’s for the Southern Division Crime Office. Witness further stated that the funds were released to the accused and the accused acknowledged the same through this signature on the exhibit register when he received it. The exhibit register was tendered as prosecution exhibit number 1. 

9.	There was no cross examination for this witness. 

PW 3 WPC Savaira Dakua 

10.	Witness stated that she was based at the Crime Intelligence Unit of Nabua Police Station. Witness further stated that the unclaimed money was handed to the accused as per his instructions. Witness further testified in court that the unclaimed money taken by the accused was used to buy 2 binoculars, 3 dell laptops, 1 printer, 2 hard drives, extension cord, and one Wi-Fi. According to this witness all items purchased from that unclaimed money under the authorisation of the accused were entered into the Nabua Police Station inventory register and utilised in the same station.

PW 4 Lorainne Seru

11.	Stated that she conducted the caution interview of the accused and the same was tendered as part of the evidence with the consent of the defence. According to the witness the procedure of the unclaimed money was put to the accused as per the Force Standing Orders and the accused was aware of the all standard procedures when asked in the caution interview regarding the handling of unclaimed money. 
12.	In cross examination the witness informed the court that the accused fully refunded the money of $8064.50 when the procedural breaches as per the Force Standing Orders came into limelight. 

13.	At the end of the prosecution case, court found that there was a case to answer against the accused. Accused was explained all three fundamental legal rights and after consulting his counsel, the accused chose to give evidence and also informed the court that he call one witness on his behalf.  

Defence Case 

DW1 ACP Meli Sateki

14.	Assistance Commissioner of Police Meli Sateki gave evidence on behalf of the accused. Stated that in 2020 he was the Director Corporate Service with the Fiji Police Force and was operating in a restrictive environment due to COVID pandemic. According to the witness due to the state of emergency procurement for police resources were not possible due to restrictions in place under emergency law. Witness also stated that with budgetary issues during the emergency period, the advice from the Ministry of Finance he received as Director Corporate was that certain purchases could not be done for Police Force and if it’s done, payments will be given later.  

15.	In cross examination the witness stated that unclaimed money should be deposited into consolidated account as per the Force Standing Orders.

DW 2 – Accused

16.	Witness stated that in 2020 he was the Divisional Crime Officer Southern during the pandemic. According to him, lots of known criminal were taking advantage of the situation due to isolation and restrictive movements of Police. Witness stated that resources were getting constrained due to procurement issues and demand for equipment’s to facilitate investigation were becoming a challenge. Witness stated based on the challenging situation he acted by using the unclaimed funds to procure necessary items to assist in the investigation works. Witness further stated that all items purchased from the unclaimed money were properly receipted, documented and accounted for in the Police Force inventory register. Witness also stated that all items purchased from the unclaimed funds remained with Fiji Police Force at all times. Witness also stated that he further reimbursed the entire sum of $8064.50 back into the consolidated account whilst the assets purchased remained with the Fiji Police Force.

17.	In cross examination witness agreed that as per Force Standing Orders all money is to be deposited into consolidated funds. Witness maintained in cross examination that he acted in good faith and had no intention to personally gain anything by using the unclaimed funds. 
Analysis of evidence 
Prosecution Case
18.	The burden of proving each ingredient of the charge rests entirely on the prosecution and the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

19.	Therefore, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove all the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt in terms of fault and physical element. 

20.	This statutory provision of law is further relied upon the persuasive authority in the matter of Woolmington  v DPP [1935] AC 462where it was held that :
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt, subject [to the qualification involving the defence of insanity and to any statutory exception]. If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether [the offence was committed by him], the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained” (per Viscount Sankey L.C. at pp. 481-482).

21.	I have carefully reviewed all evidence before me which were, oral evidence on oath together with documentary evidence. 

22.	It is not necessary to write verbatim proceedings and all evidence in this judgement for prosecution and defence but that does not mean I have not gone through all the written and oral evidence before me or placed no weight on it.

23.	I have thoroughly revisited all the evidence before me and decided to put pertinent and salient features of it in my ruling.
24.	The first issue for this court was to examine the manner in which the unclaimed money was used to purchase equipment which was than directly used for police operations without proper procedures being not followed under the Fiji Police Force standing orders.

25.	The second issue for this court was than see that by breaching the procedures through an arbitrary act and in abuse of his authority, did the accused obtained a gain through malice or calculated intention to be dishonest?

26.	Court noted that all equipment’s purchased were registered under police inventory and is being used by the Criminal Intelligence Department as confirmed by PW 3.

27.	The evidence of PW 1 and PW 4 is not disputed that Force Standing Orders were breached in relation to not banking the unclaimed funds back into the consolidated account. 

28.	The accused himself acknowledged and admitted the same and therefore this was not a fact in issue during the trial.

29.	The evidence of PW 3 revealed that from that unclaimed money used by the accused, 2 binoculars, 3 dell laptops, 1 printer, 2 hard drives, extension cord, and one wifi were purchased. 

30.	According to the witness all items purchased from that unclaimed money under the authorisation of the accused were entered into the Nabua Police Station inventory register, together with the receipt of the purchase.

31.	The defence witness, who is the current Assistant Commissioner of Police stated that during the time of offence, he was the Director Corporate and he admitted in court that there were resource constraints and payment issues in procuring items due to COVID pandemic. 

32.	In ventilating the entire evidence, this court now closely looks at the conduct of the accused in order to determine on the issue of culpability and further to determine that if any criminality were involved during the transaction. 
Did the accused followed the proper procedure in handling the unclaimed money? 

33.	The answer to this is no. The accused did not follow the proper procedures in handing the unclaimed money. The correct procedure as outlined by PW 1 and PW 4 and defence witness 1 was that the unclaimed money should have been banked into the Government Revenue account.

Did the actions of the accused discerned into criminality?

34.	The most pertinent issue of this court is to determine is that, did the accused acting within his official duties and exercising discretion, even if that discretion is not ideal amounted  to abuse of office?

35.	Did the specific law in terms of abuse of office is breached for personal gain or through some actions of the accused that were only breaches of regulation and procedures as in Force Standing Orders but no criminality involved?

36.	The issue of personal gain or no gain is to be objectively looked also against the breach of procedures. Mere negligence, honest mistakes or bad judgement, procedural breaches whilst making administrative decisions may NOT always constitute a criminal abuse of office if it’s done in good faith for the betterment of an institution in certain circumstances like COVID pandemic. Did this happen in this case?

37.	Furthermore if a public official carries out their duties without any intention of obtaining an unfair or illegal advantage for themselves or others or without intending to cause a detriment to another person or acted in good faith, should be charge of abuse of office stand?

38.	The Supreme Court in Naiveli v State [1995] FJSC 2; CAV0001u.1994s (23 November 1995) (decided when S. 111 of the Penal Code which is comparable to Section 139 of the Crimes Act, was in force) stated that:
”Central to the commission of any offence under S.111 is the doing or directing to be done an arbitrary act, “in abuse of the authority of” the “accused’s office”. What differentiates something done in abuse of office from something not done in abuse of office in many cases will be the state of mind of the accused. (my emphasis added) An act done or direction given, which is otherwise within the power of authority of an officer of the public service, will constitute an abuse of office if it is done or given maliciously with the intention of causing loss or  harm to another or with the intention of conferring some advantage or benefit on the officer. (my emphasis added) They are just two instances of abuse of office. No doubt other instances may be given. But it would be unwise for us to attempt an exhaustive definition of what constitutes an abuse of office, to use a shorthand description of the statutory expression “abuse of the authority of his office”.
39.	In Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) v Laqere  [2017] FJHC 337; HAC56.2014 (10 May 2017)  his lordship Hon. Rajasinghe T, in his summing-up, directed the assessors at succinctly on the element of “abuse of the authority of his office” as follows:
“If the accused uses his position in the public service for the furtherance of an illegitimate agenda, based on a bad or dishonest faith or an improper motive that constitutes abuse of the authority of his position in the public service. In order to determine what is an abuse of authority of the office, it is required to consider the motive of the accused to act in such a manner. If you are satisfied that the accused has acted in some bad faith and has used his position to fulfill that motive, then this element is proven. In order to determine the state of mind of the accused, you have to take into consideration [of] all the evidence adduced in this hearing.” (my emphasis added)
40.	Apart from the procedural breaches for not banking the unclaimed money into the consolidated account as per Force Standing Orders, there is no material evidence before this court that the accused made any personal gain for himself or for others in collusion or acted in bad faith, or maliciously and intentionally acted to cause a loss.

41.	Understandably, the procurement was done during pandemic, and the intention of the accused was done in good faith which this court finds cogent from the evidence before this court, and this was to use the unclaimed money to purchase items for direct use of police criminal investigation during the COVID Pandemic. 

42.	Furthermore as per the evidence all items purchased from the unclaimed money became part of police assets to this date. 

43.	The accused also restituted the same amount $ 8064.00 back into the consolidated funds. 

44.	In applying the principles enunciated in supra Naiveli and Laqere, this court finds that the accused did not do anything with malicious intent of causing a loss or obtaining a gain for himself or anyone or harm to another or with the intention of conferring some advantage or benefit for himself or anyone. 

45.	During the COVID pandemic, it is public knowledge that things were tensed, chaotic and prudent decisions were to be made at certain times. 

46.	It is important to note that for an action to be an abuse of office, it must meet a high threshold of seriousness that affronts the standing of public office.

47.	 If the conduct does not show dishonesty or a deliberate attempt to cause harm or to gain an advantage, it may only constitute a disciplinary issue rather than a criminal offense on breaches of procedures like in this matter.

48.	In simple, this court finds that the accused did not obtain any gain through his actions and neither colluded with anyone to obtain a benefit for them or loss to anyone by using that unclaimed money for buying items for the benefit of the Fiji Police Force.

Determination of court

49.	Considering the nature of all the evidence before this Court, it is my carefully considered verdict that the prosecution have not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused through his actions obtained any gain or acted with malice with a calculated move. 

50.	In these circumstances, I find the accused not guilty for one count of abuse of office and acquit him from the charge accordingly.

......................................................
Yogesh Prasad
Resident Magistrate
Dated at Suva this 6th day of February,2026