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

State v Seniloli [2004] FJHC 40; HAC0028.2003S (7 July 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0028 OF 2003S

STATE

v.

RATU JOPE SENILOLI
RATU RAKUITA VAKALALABURE
RATU VILIAME VOLAVOLA
ISIRELI LEWENIQILA
PECELI RINAKAMA
VILIAME SAVU

Hearing: 7th July 2004
Ruling: 7th July 2004

Counsel: Mr. M. Tedeschi, Mr. G. Allan, Ms A. Prasad for State;
Mr. M. Raza for 1st accused
Mr. A.K. Singh for 2nd Accused;
Mr. S. Naqase for 3rd and 6th Accused;
Mr. D. Sharma for 4th Accused;
Mr. A. Seru for 5th Accused.

RULING ON THE POLICE STATEMENT
OF THE 2ND ACCUSED

Counsel for the 2nd Accused initially asked that the whole of the interview be included. However this morning he agreed that the allegations insofar as they deal with other matters should be deleted together with questions 30 to 36, question 119, question 140, question 149 to question 156 and questions 167 to 186 inclusive.

The State disagrees only in relation to question 119, question 140 and question 149, saying that the questions and answers are relevant and of probative value.

Question 119 asks whether the 2nd accused asked George Speight the purpose of the takeover and the accused replied that George Speight did explain what the purpose was.

Question 140 asked why he agreed to be sworn in as Attorney-General and the answer was that he believed George Speight had effective control over the country.

Question 119 is relevant because the alleged meeting was on the 19th of May and is in relation to the 2nd accused’s perceptions about the reason for the takeover. It is relevant to the defence he is raising, as is question 140. Mr. Singh says that the latter is inconsistent with his defence and therefore should be excluded. This is not a basis for exclusion. It is relevant and is not excluded.

In summary, the allegations, questions 30 to 36, questions 149 to 156 and questions 167 to 186 are deleted. I note that Mr. Singh queries the relevance of question 29 but I consider that if duress is an issue this question and answer have direct relevance to that defence. It remains in.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
7th July 2004