IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 08 of 2015

STATE

V

ETUATE DREDUADUA

Counsels:	Mr. L. Fotiofili for the State
		Accused in person

Date of Application: 25 and 26 May 2016
Date of Ruling: 26 May 2016

RULING 
NO CASE TO ANSWER

[1]	At the end of the Prosecution case, the unrepresented accused	makes an application that there be no case to answer. 

[2]	He files homemade submissions which detail the legal 	requirement for such an application and in which he relies on 	the relevant case of SisaKalisoqoCr. App 52 of 1984.

[3]	He submits that there is no evidence before the Court that the 	land belonged to him, which he says is an important element of 	the offence. 

[4]	Furthermore, he submits that there was no production into 	evidence of the plants seized.

[5]	He further adds that the evidence was contradictory and 	unsatisfactory and cannot be relied on. 

[6]	The offence of cultivation of illicit drugs is proved only by 	evidence of cultivation and ownership of the land being 	cultivated is irrelevant. 

[7]	It is not essential that the drugs be produced in Court. 	Descriptions of the seizure and a chain of evidence through to 	the Chemist is enough evidence to found a prima facie case. 

[8]	Although the accused was not present at the time of the raid, 	the evidence of his nephew who was staying in his house is 	sufficient to make a strong circumstantial case against the 	accused.

[9]	There is someevidence and therefore the application is 	dismissed. 

						P.K. Madigan
						Judge
At Labasa
26 May 2016