IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 2207 of 2004

STATE

V

SAINIVALATI VEITOGAVI

Before Ajmal Gulab Khan Esq
Resident Magistrate

DPP: Ms P Madanavosa
Defence: In Person

Date of Hearing: 21/7/08
Date of Sentence: 28/7/08

JUDGMENT

The accused Sainivalati Veitogavi has been charged for unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle and Robbery with Violence contrary to penal code S292 and S293 (1) (b) Cap 17.

The facts are not disputed by him but the accused maintains he was only a taxi driver hired by the accused and paid for his services.

On 8th of August 2003 one Rakesh Pal 29 years an accountant of JS Hill & Associates was robbed of cash amounting to $64,759.17. Sainivalati and four others are charged. Same accused in a stolen vehicle EB711 followed the JS Hill van to its’ Wailada Lami Office. The occupants of JS Hill van were pelted with stones and bottles. The occupants of van EB711 got off masked wielded cane knives, and grabbed the bag with cash and left the scene.

This accused Sainivalati was arrested and charged after investigations. He gave his statement and admitted taking part as a pickup drop off driver and had knowledge of the robbery. He also alleged being assaulted by police and the statement given was due to the assault and unvoluntary. After trial within trial this court found this statement to be voluntarily given and admitted it in evidence.
'
The accused maintained in his defence that he was hired by the robbers. He said he lied to the police about the version in his caution interview. He repeated that he was assaulted by police so he lied.

Upon considering whole of the evidence I find that the accused took a greater part in the robbery than an innocent taxi driver who was merely hired for a job for the following reasons;

1.	He had knowledge of the intended robbery and helped in search of the van carrying the money on behalf of the robbers.

2.	He knew he was to pick the boys and drop them to the scene of the robbery.

3.	He followed instructions to ensure the success of the robbery.

4.	He knew van was stolen and will be used in the intended robbery.

5.	His fare for taxi was $10.50 but he got $300 as his share.

6.	He drove another’s taxi but used the $300 he received by himself.

7.	He reconstructed the scene and gave full information as it had happened on that day and described the meetings which took place in preparation for the robbery.

I accept the version of accused as in his caution statement and reject his evidence in court for the above reasons.

I find the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that this accused was together in the planning and robbery with others. He took part and aided and abetted the robbers with common intent. His intention was to rob even if he was only a driver and did not take part in the actual robbery.

I find the accused guilty as charged.

Dated this 28th day of July 2008.

Ajmal Gulab Khan
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE