PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2005 >> [2005] FJHC 453

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Jione [2005] FJHC 453; HAC0022X.2003S (26 October 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION


Crim. Case No: HAC0022 of 2003S


STATE


v.


FORATE EPINISI JIONE


Hearing: 26th October 2005
Ruling: 26th October 2005


Counsel: Mr. A. Ravindra-Singh for State
Accused in Person


RULING


The State did not tender in evidence, the record of the caution statement of the Accused. In the course of his evidence-in-chief, the Accused said he had made no admissions to the police. In fact, a copy of his police interview on the bundle of disclosed documents, suggests otherwise. The State now wants to cross-examine on these admissions as a previous inconsistent statement.


The accused objects to the admissibility of that statement and told me quite candidly that he thought the original was missing. He agreed he was aware of the existence of the typed copy on the depositions.


Ordinarily, the State would be entitled to cross-examine on the previous inconsistent statement. However at pre-trial conference the Accused put the State on notice to his objections to the use of the interview. Ordinarily therefore a trial within a trial would have been conducted to determine admissibility. By tendering the statement now, as a previous inconsistent statement without the benefit of a trial within a trial, is to deprive the Accused of his right of protection from unfairly obtained evidence.


However he has himself made an interview an issue. In the circumstances I will allow the State to cross-examine him on the question of whether or not he made any admissions after allowing him to read the statement in the witness box. However the State may not identify the statement.


I will therefore allow limited questions on the existence of this interview, but I will not allow the tendering of the statement on the ground that its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value as an out-of-court inconsistent statement.


Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE


At Suva
26th October 2005


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2005/453.html