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

State v Tuiloa [2008] FJHC 242; HAC003.2007 (8 August 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 003/2007

THE STATE

AND

MALAKAI TUILOA

JUDGMENT

Mr Malakai Tuiloa was charged with two counts, in the alternative:

FIRST COUNT

OFFICIAL CORRUPTION: Contrary to section 106(a) of the Penal Code, Cap 17

Particulars of offence

MALAKAI TUILOA, between 22 October 1998 and 31 October 1999, at Suva in the Central Division, being employed in the PUBLIC SERVICE as FISHERIES OFFICER and being charged with the performance of duties by virtue of such employment, corruptly received a $3,850.00 cheque from one DONALD ROSS BRODIE for himself on account of securing a tender in favour of SEAMECH LTD in the discharge of duties of his office.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

EXTORTION BY PUBLIC OFFICER: Contrary to section 107 of the Penal Code, Cap 17

Particulars of offence

MALAKAI TUILOA, between 22 October 1998 and 31 October 1999 at Suva in the Central Division, being employed in the PUBLIC SERVICE as FISHERIES OFFICER and being charged with the performance of duties by virtue of such employment, accepted $3,850 cheque from one DONALD ROSS BRODIE as a reward beyond his proper pay and emoluments.

On the last day of the trial, the Assessors found Mr Tuiloa ‘not guilty’ on each count. Their findings were unanimous. On that day, I acquitted Mr Tuiloa on both counts.

On that day, I stated that I would deliver my reasons later.

In the event, the Assessors having found unanimously, it is appropriate to provide my reasons as follows.

The Assessors having determined unanimously that Mr Tuiloa was ‘not guilty’ means that they did not consider that, on the evidence and hence the facts as presented, the State had proven each element or at least one of the essential elements of the offences with which Mr Tuiloa was charged.

The Assessors are members of the community whose role is to make findings on the facts. I accepted their determination which, in my opinion, is not perverse and is a finding that can be read consistent with the evidence and hence the facts as placed before this Court in the trial.

I directed myself in accordance with my summing up.

Bearing in mind the unanimous determination of the Assessors which indicated to me a consistency with the view I had formed after hearing all the evidence and the addresses by Counsel, that the burden of proof lying upon the State had not been discharged. The requisite elements not having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I made my decision.

Upon the basis set out herein, I found Mr Malakai Tuiloa ‘not guilty’ on count one. Turning to count two, which is expressed in the alternative, I found Mr Malakai Tuiloa ‘not guilty’ on that count.

Hence, I acquitted Mr Tuiloa of both offences.

Jocelynne A. Scutt
Judge

Suva
8 August 2008