IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 115 OF 2013S

STATE

vs

JALESI BATIMUDRAMUDRA

Counsels: Mr. T. Qalinauci for State
Accused in Person

Hearings: 29 and 30 June, 2015
Ruling: 30 June, 2015
Written Reasons: 3 July, 2015

WRITTEN REASONS FOR RULING ON VOIR DIRE

1.	The accused was charged with "aggravated burglary" and "theft" against the complainant's dwelling house and properties on 8 March 2013. In the course of police investigation, they obtained an alleged confession from the accused, when they caution interviewed him, at Samabula Police Station, on 6 March 2013.

2.	He challenged the admissibility of the above alleged confession in a "trial within a trial" conducted on 29 June 2015. The prosecution called 4 witnesses, all police officers, and the accused gave sworn evidence. The voluntariness of the above alleged confession was in issue. At the end of the "trial within a trial", I declared the alleged confession in the accused police caution interview statements, as admissible evidence, on 30 June, 2015. I said I would give my written reasons later. Below are my reasons.

3.	The law in this area is well settled. On 13th July 1984, the Fiji Court of Appeal in Ganga Ram & Shiu Charan v Reginam, Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1983, said the following, "….it will be remembered that there are two matters each of which requires consideration in this area. First, it must be established affirmatively by the crown beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary in the sense that they were not procured by improper practices such as the use of force, threats of prejudice or inducement by offer of some advantage – what has been picturesquely described as the "flattery of hope or the tyranny of fear" Ibrahim v R (1941) AC 599, DPP v Ping Lin (1976) AC 574. Secondly even if such voluntariness is established there is also need to consider whether the more general ground of unfairness exists in the way in which the police behaved, perhaps by breach of the Judges Rules falling short of overbearing the will, by trickery or by unfair treatment. Regina v Sang (1980) AC 402, 436 @ C – E. This is a matter of overriding discretion and one cannot specifically categorize the matters which might be taken into account …."

4.	I have carefully considered the evidence of all the prosecutions' and defence's witnesses. I have compared and analyzed all of them. After considering the authority mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof, and after looking at all the facts, I have come to the conclusion that the accused gave his caution interview statements voluntarily and out of his own free will. I therefore rule that the caution interview statements is admissible evidence, and could be used in the trial proper, but its acceptance or otherwise, are matters for the assessors.

5.	In giving my reasons abovementioned, I bear in mind what the Court of Appeal said in Sisa Kalisoqo v Reginam, Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1984, where their Lordships said: "…We have of recent times said that in giving a decision after a trial within a trial there are good reasons for the Judge to express himself with an economy of words…"

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.
Solicitor for Accused : Accused in Person