IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
AT LAUTOKA

CRIMINAL CASE: HAC 71 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

SAILOSI ROKOTUIWAILEVU
 
Counsel : Mr. Niudamu. J for State
 Mrs. Nasedra for the Accused
 
Date of Hearing : 5th and 6th of October 2015
Date of Closing Submissions : 8th of October 2015
Date of Summing Up : 9th of October 2015
Date of Judgment : 12th of October 2015

JUDGMENT

1.	The accused person is charged with one count of Attempted Murder contrary to Section 44(1) and Section 227 of the Crimes Decree. The particulars of the offence are that; 
Sailosi Rokotuiwailevu, on the 24th of April 2015, at Vitawa village, Rakiraki, in the Western Division, attempted to murder Peni Navuki". 

2.	The accused person pleaded not guilty for this offence; hence the hearing of this action took place on 5th and 6th of October 2015. The prosecution called six witnesses during the course of the hearing. At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused person gave evidence on oath and called no other witnesses for the defence. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the defence and the prosecution made their respective closing submissions. I then delivered my summing up to the assessors. 

3.	The three assessors returned with unanimous verdict of guilty against the accused person. The assessors' verdict was not perverse. It was open for them to reach such conclusion on the evidence presented during the hearing. 

4.	Having considered the evidence presented during the hearing, respective closing submissions of the prosecution and the defence, and the opinions of the assessors, I now proceed to pronounce my judgment as follows. 

5.	Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties during the course of the hearing, it appears that the main contentious issue is whether the accused person had an intention to kill the victim. 

6.	The accused in his evidence admitted that he stuck the victim twice with a cane knife. He did not dispute much of the incidents that preceded the striking of the victim with the cane knife. The accused has admitted in his caution interview that he had an intention to kill the victim inside the house. He further stated in his evidence that he freely gave his answers during the record of his caution interview. However, he then stated that he was angry when he gave his answers at the caution interview. He again changed his position and stated that he was not angry during the caution interview. 

7.	D.C. Isoa, who is the interviewing officer of the caution interview, stated in his evidence that the accused freely answered to the questions during the caution interview and appeared like that he was regretting for what he did to his father, the victim. DC Isoa did not find the accused was angry during the caution interview.

8.	Having considered the inconsistent nature of the evidence of the accused and the consistence nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is my opinion that the prosecution has established that the accused had an intention to kill the victim and struck the victim twice with the cane knife in order to execute that intention. 

9.	Accordingly, I am satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused person has committed this offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I do not find any cogent reason to disagree with the unanimous verdict of guilty of the three assessors. Wherefore, I find the accused person is guilty for this offence of Attempted Murder contrary to Section 44(1) and Section 227 of the Crimes Decree and convict him accordingly. 

R. D. R. Thushara Rajasinghe
Judge

At Lautoka
12th of October 2015

Solicitors : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 
 Office of the Legal Aid Commission