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

  Download original PDF

State v Ali [2019] FJHC 1189; HAC076.2018LAB (23 December 2019)

THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 076 OF 2018LAB

STATE

V

SAIYAD ALI

Counsels : Ms. A. Vavadakua for State
Ms. K. Boseiwaqa and Mr. J. Prasad for Accused

Hearing : 16 December, 2019
Ruling : 16 December, 2019
Written Reasons: 23 December, 2019

WRITTEN REASONS FOR VOIR DIRE RULING

1. In this case, the accused was charged with “arson”, contrary to section 362 (a) of the Crimes Act 2009. It was alleged that on 13 October 2018, at Seaqaqa in the Northern Division, he willfully and unlawfully set fire to the complainant’s farm house.

2. In the course of the police investigation, the accused was caution interviewed by the police on 13 and 14 October 2018 at Seaqaqa Police Station. During the caution interview, it was alleged that the accused admitted the offence to police.

3. On 16 December 2019, the accused, through his counsels, challenged the admissibility of his caution interview statement in a voir dire. The defence alleged that the police forced the alleged confession out of the accused, and asked that the same be ruled as inadmissible evidence.

4. The prosecution called two witnesses, both police officers. The accused gave sworn evidence. Altogether, there were three witnesses, on whose evidence the court will have to make a decision. After listening to the parties closing submissions, I ruled the caution interview statement as admissible evidence, and I said I would give my reasons later. Below are my reasons.

5. The law in this area is well settled. On 13^th July 1984, the Fourt of Appf Appeal in Ganm & ShShiu Charan v Reginam, Criminal l peal No. 46 of said the following. “....it will be remembered that there are two matters each of w of which requires consideration in this area.;F/u>, it must be established affirmatively by the the crowncrown 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;(194 5 AC 599,&#16, DPP 0;Ling Lin (197;(1976) AC 574.;Seco>Secondly even if soluntariness is e is established there is also need to consider whether the more general ground of unfairness exin th in wthe police bice behaved, perhaps by breach of the Jude Judges Rules falling short of overbearinearing the will, by trickery or by unfair treatment. Regina&# Sanu>Sang 91980) AC 402,@ C-E. ThE. This is a matter of overriding discretion and one cannot specifically categorize the matters which might be taken into account....”