IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Crim. Case No: HAC 293 of 2017

STATE

-vs-

           KITIONE CAGI

Counsel:			 Ms. S. Lodhia with Mr. Z. Zunaid for the State
				 Accused is absent

Date of Hearing:		 03rd and 4th June 2019
Date of Summing Up:	 05th June 2019
Date of Judgment:		 05th June 2019

JUDGMENT

1.	The accused is charged with others with one count of Aggravated Robbery, contrary to Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 2009.  The particulars of the offence are that:

Statement of Offence
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to Section 311 (1) (a) o the Crimes Act 2009.

Particulars of Offence
KITIONE CAGI, EMOSI BALEDROKADROKA and another on the 29th day of August 2017 at Suva in the Central Division, in the company of each other robbed JANG WAN BANG & MYOUNG HEE KIM of 1 x Samsung brand S7 mobile phone, 1 x Kia 3 smart watch, 1 x Swiss brand wrist watch, 1 x brown German brand wrist watch, 1 x National Assembly of Korea brand wrist watch, 1 x black leather wallet containing $150 cash, ATM and credit cards, 1 x bottle of black label whiskey, 1 x bottle of blue label whiskey, 1 x bottle of chivas regal whiskey, 1 x bottle of champagne, 15 bottles of other assorted alcohol and 1 Kia brand sorento vehicle registration number FZ079 approximately valued at $65, 000, $250 cash, 1 x gold ring, 1 x pair of 18ct gold earrings, 1 x blue sapphire 18ct white gold ring, 1 x 18ct gold chain, 1 x diamond white gold ring, 1 x wrist watch, 1 HP brand laptop, 1 x pink apple brand IPOD, 1 x translator machine, 1 x pair of black Adidas brand shoes, 1 x pair of black Nike brand shoes, 1 x black puma bag and 1 x black jacket, the properties of JANG WAN BANG & MYOUNG HEE KIM.
2.	The accused has absconded in appearing in court after he is granted bail by the court. In pursuant of Section 14 (1) (h) (i) of the Constitution, the court proceeded to the hearing in the absence of the accused.  Accordingly, the hearing commenced on the 3rd of June 2019 and concluded on the 4th of June 2019. The prosecution presented the evidence of four witnesses. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the prosecution made her closing address. I then delivered my summing up. 
3.	The three assessors in their opinions, unanimously found the accused guilty to the offence. 
4.	Having carefully taken into consideration the evidence presented by the prosecution, the closing address of the learned counsel for the prosecution, the summing up and the opinion of the assessors, I now proceed to pronounce my judgment as follows. 
5.	According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the case against the accused is founded on the principle of “Recent Possession”.  The complainant in his evidence said that he did not see or identified the accused person as all of them were masked.  However, few weeks after the incident, the accused was found in possession with some of the stolen items. They were Swiss Military Wristwatch, Casio Wristwatch, Nike canvass and HP Laptop. 
6.	The complainant, Mr. Sale, and DC Voi identified the stolen items that were recovered from the possession of the accused. 
7.	In view of these facts, I find there is no cogent reasons to disagree with the unanimous opinion of guilty given by the three assessors. 
8.	In conclusion, I find the accused guilty to the offence of Aggravated Robbery, contrary to Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 2009 and convict him to the same accordingly. 

R.D.R.T. Rajasinghe
Judge

At Suva
05th June 2019

Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State.
Accused is absent.