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

State v Tuinakelo - Judgment [2015] FJHC 147; HAC025.2014 (4 March 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

Criminal Case No. HAC 025 of 2014

STATE

v

APETE LIU SERU TUINAKELO

Counsel: Ms S. Kant for State.
Mr. J. Savou (L.A.C.) for the accused.

Dates of hearing.2 and 4 March 2015.
Date of Judgment: 4 March 2015.

JUDGMENT

Apete Liu Seru Tuinakelo, you have been charged with the following offence:

FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence

ARSON: contrary to section 362(a) of the Crimes Decree of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

Apete Liu Seru Tuinakelo on the or about the 12th day of December 2013 at Suva in the Central Division, unlawfully and willfully set fire to the Courier Documents and Parcel Services Office Building, situated at 23 Matua Street,Walu Bay, Suva.

2. By a majority decision (2:1) the assessors have found you guilty of this offence.

3. The evidence against you was strong. The Court heard that in the early hours of 12th December 2013, you and other labourers were loading a truck at the rented premises of CDP Services in Walu Bay. There had been a report of leaking solvent outside and you had been warned by the supervisor not to go outside and not to smoke. Near the end of the loading you went outside and lit a cigarette throwing a lit match into a drain which started the fire that engulfed the building.

4. In your cautioned interview which was never disputed, you admitted that you threw the lit match into the drain, you admitted that prior to that you had smelled a strong smell of thinner and that you knew that the smell came from thinner. You said that you thought the smell was coming from a punctured drum but not from escaped liquid but you knew (and admitted) that the smell being so strong you should have moved far away to light your cigarette.

5. This Court has no doubt whatsoever in finding beyond reasonable doubt that you were aware that a substantial risk of fire had been created by those circumstances, and aware of that risk you went ahead and discarded a lit match without any justification whatsoever.

6. This Court concludes that you were reckless in terms of section 21 of the Crimes Decree and being reckless you were acting "willfully" in accordance with the ratio of the House of Lords in R.v. Sheppard (1981) AC 394.

7. On addressing myself on my own summing up, I agree with the majority of the assessors and find you guilty of the offence as charged, and I convict you accordingly.

8. That is the judgment of the Court.

P.K. Madigan
Judge

At Suva
4 March, 2015.