CASES

STATE v PRASAD
IRAC Method
Issue: The issue in this case revolves around determining the guilt or innocence of the accused
individuals on counts of wrongful confinement, rape, and indecent assault.
Rule:
1. Burden and Standard of Proof: The burden of proof lies on the prosecution throughout the
trial, and it must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused individuals are
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
2. Elements of Offenses: The prosecution must prove specific elements for each offense
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Wrongful Confinement: Involves unlawfully confining a person without lawful
authority or justification.
 Rape: Requires proving penetration of the complainant's vagina without consent,
with knowledge of non-consent.
 Indecent Assault: Involves unlawful, indecent assault on the person of another.
3. Credibility of Evidence: Assessors must evaluate the credibility of the complainant's
testimony and other evidence presented in court, including medical reports and caution
interview statements of the accused.
Application:
1. The prosecution presented a case alleging that the accused individuals, acting together,
wrongfully confined the complainant, raped her, and subjected her to indecent assault.
The complainant provided detailed testimony regarding the events.
2. Despite the accused choosing to remain silent and not presenting witnesses, their caution
interview statements partially corroborated the complainant's version of events.
3. Medical reports also provided some support to the complainant's testimony, though they
did not definitively prove or disprove the allegations.
Conclusion: Based on the presented evidence, the assessors must determine the guilt or
innocence of each accused individual on each count. They must carefully weigh the credibility of
the complainant's testimony against other evidence, keeping in mind the burden of proof resting
on the prosecution and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ultimately, their
decisions will determine the outcome of the case.
SUMMARY
The case involves five accused individuals charged with various offenses including wrongful
confinement, rape, and indecent assault. The prosecution presented evidence alleging that the
accuseds wrongfully confined the complainant and committed the specified offenses against her.
The accuseds denied the allegations but chose to remain silent during the trial. However, their
police caution interview statements appeared to support some aspects of the complainant's
testimony. Medical reports also seemed to align with the complainant's account. The judge
directed the assessors to carefully consider all evidence, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The assessors were instructed to deliberate and reach
individual verdicts on each count for each accused.
STATE v TANIORIA
IRAC Method
Issue: The issue at hand is whether Aminio Ataninano Tanioria is guilty of assaulting Rupeni
Mateyawa with the intent to cause grievous harm, as charged under Section 255(a) of the Crimes
Act, 2009.

Rule: According to Section 255(a) of the Crimes Act, 2009, an individual is guilty of an offense
if they commit an act with the specific intent to cause grievous harm to another person.

Application: The incident occurred on August 24, 2019, in Suva, where Tanioria allegedly
punched Mateyawa several times and threw him on the cement footpath. Admitted facts include
Tanioria's identity, the assault, and Mateyawa's condition rendering him unable to testify.
Witness testimony from three individuals who witnessed the later part of the incident supports
the prosecution's claim. They saw Tanioria assaulting Mateyawa without provocation. Medical
evidence from two doctors corroborates the severity of Mateyawa's injuries, indicating partial
paralysis and permanent brain damage due to the assault. Tanioria claims self-defense, stating he
pursued Mateyawa after the latter stole his mobile phone. He acknowledges punching Mateyawa
but denies throwing him to the ground.

Conclusion: Upon evaluation of the evidence, it is evident that Tanioria's actions were not
justified under self-defense laws. The prosecution successfully proves Tanioria's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt for unlawfully assaulting Mateyawa. While there is insufficient evidence to
establish Tanioria's specific intent to cause grievous harm as charged under Section 255(a), the
evidence supports a conviction for unlawful wounding under section 261 of the Crimes Act.
Therefore, Aminio Ataninano Tanioria is found guilty of unlawfully wounding Rupeni
Mateyawa.
SUMMARY
Aminio Ataninano Tanioria was found guilty of assaulting Rupeni Mateyawa with intent to
cause grievous harm, following an altercation where Tanioria allegedly punched Mateyawa and
threw him to the ground after accusing him of stealing his mobile phone. While Tanioria claimed
self-defense, witness testimony and medical evidence painted a picture of unjustified assault,
leading to Tanioria's conviction for unlawful wounding under section 261 of the Crimes Act. The
court clarified the applicability of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Act, allowing for
conviction of a lesser offense when evidence doesn't support the original charge. Overall,
Tanioria's actions were deemed disproportionate and unreasonable, leading to his conviction for
unlawful wounding rather than the more serious charge of acting with intent to cause grievous
harm.

CASES USED
1. Palmer v R [1970] UKPC 2; [1971] AC 814:
  This case established the fundamental principles of self-defense, emphasizing that
a person may defend themselves with reasonable force when faced with an attack.
The court highlighted the importance of assessing the reasonableness of the force
used in the circumstances as perceived by the individual defending themselves.
2. R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:
 This case likely reaffirmed the principles laid out in Palmer v R regarding self-
defense, providing further guidance on the reasonable use of force in defending
oneself or others.
3. R v Williams (G) [1983] EWCA Crim 4; 78 Cr App R 276:
 This case establishes the subjective and objective elements of assessing self-
defense, indicating that the accused's actions should be evaluated based on their
honest belief in the necessity of force, as well as whether a reasonable person
would view the force used as reasonable or excessive.
4. R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367:
 Likely similar to R v Williams, this case likely provided additional guidance on
the subjective and objective elements of self-defense, helping to clarify how the
courts assess whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
5. R v Clegg [1995] UKHL 1; 1995 1 AC 482 HL:
 This case likely deals with the proportionality of force used in self-defense
situations, emphasizing that the force used must be both necessary and reasonable
in response to the perceived threat.
6. State v Chand [2020] FJHC 973; HAC 309.2020:
 This case appears to involve an interpretation of section 160 of the Criminal
Procedure Act regarding minor offenses. The analysis likely explores the scope of
section 160 and its application to convictions for minor offenses in criminal
proceedings.
7. R v. Belfon [1976] 3 All ER 46 (English Court of Criminal Appeal):
 This case establishes the principle that specific intent is required to prove the
offence of causing grievous bodily harm. Mere foresight of harm or recklessness
is not sufficient to establish intent.
8. Naosara v. State [2007] FJHC 71; HAA047J.07S (Fiji High Court):
 In this case, the appellant was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. The
court emphasized the importance of proving the accused's intent to cause serious
harm, highlighting that this intent is a crucial element in such offences.

Judge: Gihan Kulatunga

STATE v SINGH
IRAC Method
Issue: The issue in this case is whether Prajeet Singh is guilty of Criminal Intimidation, Assault
Causing Actual Bodily Harm, Damaging Property, and Theft based on the evidence presented.

Rule: The relevant legal principles for this case include the definitions of "wilfully" as acting
deliberately or recklessly, and "unlawful" as not conforming to the law. The fault elements for
each offense are defined by relevant sections of the Crimes Act 2009.

Application: The court heard evidence from the prosecution's witnesses, including the
complainant (PW01), a doctor (PW02), and a police officer (PW03). PW01 testified to threats,
assault, property damage, and theft committed by Prajeet Singh on April 16, 2019, which was
corroborated by PW02's medical examination and PW03's recovery of stolen items. The defense
claimed self-defense, but Prajeet Singh's testimony was deemed unrealistic and contradictory.

Conclusion: Considering the unchallenged prosecution evidence establishing the elements of the
offenses and the lack of reasonable doubt created by the defense, the court found Prajeet Singh
guilty on all counts. He was convicted accordingly and directed to make mitigation submissions
before sentencing, with the right to appeal acknowledged.

SUMMARY
Mr. Prajeet Singh faced charges of Criminal Intimidation, Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm,
Damaging Property, and Theft stemming from incidents on April 16, 2019, in Suva. The
prosecution presented three witnesses whose testimonies, along with medical evidence and
recovered stolen items, established a prima facie case. The defense claimed self-defense, but
their arguments were unconvincing, leading the court to find Singh guilty on all counts. He was
directed to provide mitigation submissions before sentencing and informed of his right to appeal.

CASES USED
1. Director of Public Prosecutions v Singh [1977] FJSC 79: This case provided a legal
interpretation of the term "wilfully," clarifying that it implies a deliberate and intentional
action, not accidental or inadvertent. The ruling emphasized that the mind of the person
committing the act must be aware of it.
2. Lagi v The State [2004] FJHC 69: In this case, the court defined "wilfully" as either
intentionally performing an act or doing so without regard for the consequences. The
interpretation highlighted that "wilfully" could denote intentional action or recklessness.
3. R v. Prajeet Singh - This is the case being adjudicated upon. It involves Prajeet Singh as
the accused facing charges of criminal intimidation, assault causing actual bodily harm,
damaging property, and theft based on allegations made by the complainant, Pooja
Priyanka Mishra.

Judge: Lakshitha Jayawardhana

STATE v RATUVA
IRAC Method
Issue: The issue in this case is whether Iliesa Ratuva should be sentenced for the offense of
assault causing actual bodily harm, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the
relevant legal precedents, and mitigating factors presented by the defendant.

Rule: According to Section 275 of the Crimes Act 2009, assault causing actual bodily harm is a
punishable offense with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
Legal precedents such as State v Tugalala [2008] FJHC 78 and Naqialawa v State [2017] FJHC
484 provide guidelines for sentencing in cases of assault causing actual bodily harm. The
severity of the sentence may vary depending on factors such as the degree of provocation, the
use of weapons, and the extent of the injuries inflicted.
Mitigating factors under Section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act of 2009 include the
defendant's personal circumstances, remorse, willingness to seek forgiveness, and promise not to
re-offend.

Application: Iliesa Ratuva pleaded guilty to the charge of assault causing actual bodily harm.
The incident occurred on September 12, 2021, when Ratuva assaulted Ram Prakash Narayan,
causing injuries including a laceration on the inner surface of the lower lip, a cracked and
missing tooth, and a superficial laceration on the right index finger.
Ratuva's mitigating factors include his age (24 years old), his employment as a security officer
earning $100 per week, his de facto relationship and child, his remorse expressed to the court,
and his status as the sole breadwinner of his family.
However, Ratuva's actions also included evading court appearances multiple times, leading to
bench warrants and previous convictions for absconding bail.

Conclusion: Considering the mitigating factors presented by Ratuva, the severity of the injuries
inflicted, and the legal precedents regarding sentencing for assault causing actual bodily harm,
the court decides to consider the period spent in remand as the served sentence. Therefore, no
additional imprisonment is imposed on Ratuva beyond the time served in remand. Ratuva is
granted 28 days to appeal the decision.

SUMMARY
Iliesa Ratuva was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm after pleading guilty to
assaulting Ram Prakash Narayan, resulting in injuries including a laceration to the lower lip and
a cracked tooth. Ratuva, 23, was sentenced to the time served in remand, considering mitigating
factors such as being the sole breadwinner, seeking forgiveness, and promising not to re-offend.
However, Ratuva's evasion of court appearances led to a bench warrant being issued multiple
times. Previous convictions for bail absconding were also considered. The sentencing referenced
legal precedents such as State v Tugalala and Naqialawa v State, determining a suspended
sentence due to provocation and no weapon used, but considering the extent of injuries. Ratuva
was given 28 days to appeal.

CASES USED
"State v Tugalala [2008] FJHC 78; HAC025S.2008S (29 April 2008)." This case established a
tariff for assault causing actual bodily harm, ranging from an absolute or conditional discharge to
12 months imprisonment. It was cited to determine the appropriate sentencing for Iliesa Ratuva
based on the nature of the offense and the extent of the injuries inflicted on the victim, Ram
Prakash Narayan.

Judge: Nirosha Kannangara

DPP v DUTT
IRAC Method
Issue: The issue in this case is whether Deshwar Dutt is guilty of resisting arrest, as charged
under section 277 (a) of the Crimes Act 2009.

Rule: Section 277 (a) of the Crimes Act 2009 states that a person commits a summary offense if
they assault any person with intent to commit an indictable offense or to resist or prevent the
lawful apprehension or detention of themselves or any other person for any offense.

Application: The prosecution presented evidence from two police officers, PC5243 Lemeki
Racule and SC 6816 Pauliasi Boseiwaqa, detailing the events leading to Deshwar Dutt's arrest.
Both officers testified that Dutt resisted arrest and engaged in a struggle with the arresting
officer, Pauliasi Boseiwaqa. However, Dutt's testimony contradicted this, stating that he
surrendered himself to the police and did not resist arrest. Additionally, Dutt presented medical
reports showing injuries sustained during the arrest, including a fractured ankle, which he
claimed resulted from police brutality rather than resisting arrest.

Conclusion: Considering the conflicting testimonies and the evidence presented, the court finds
that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deshwar Dutt resisted arrest.
There is doubt as to whether Dutt resisted arrest or was assaulted by the police officers.
Therefore, in accordance with the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused,
Deshwar Dutt is acquitted of the charge of resisting arrest.

SUMMARY
Deshwar Dutt was charged with escape from lawful custody and serious assault, but the charges
were later amended to only one count of serious assault. The trial began on March 12, 2020, and
continued through various dates until June 16, 2022. Prosecution witnesses testified that Dutt
resisted arrest, but Dutt maintained that he surrendered peacefully. Medical reports supported
Dutt's claim of injuries sustained during the arrest. The court found the prosecution's evidence
inconsistent and unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dutt resisted arrest. Therefore,
Dutt was acquitted, with the benefit of doubt given to him. He was given 28 days to appeal.

Judge: Nilmini Ferdinandez

STATE v SCHWAID
IRAC METHOD
Issue: The issue at hand is whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to establish
a case against the accused, Armin Schwald, for the charges of common assault and annoying
female, as outlined in the amended charge sheet.

Rule: Under section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009, if at the close of the
prosecution's case, the court finds that there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the
charged offence or that the prosecution evidence is so discredited or manifestly unreliable that no
reasonable tribunal could convict, the court shall dismiss the case and acquit the accused. The
test for no case to answer in the Magistrates’ Court under section 210 involves two limbs:
whether there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence, and whether the
prosecution evidence has been so discredited or is so unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could
convict.

Application: In the present case, the prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to support the
charges against the accused. The witnesses testified to incidents of assault and annoyance
allegedly perpetrated by the accused against the victims. However, during cross-examination,
discrepancies arose regarding the details of the incidents and the credibility of the witnesses.
Despite these discrepancies, the prosecution argued that the evidence was sufficient to proceed
with the case.

Conclusion: After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions from both parties, the
court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven the charges of common assault and
criminal intimidation. However, the evidence presented was deemed adequate to proceed with
the charges of common assault and annoying female. Therefore, the court acquitted the accused
of the second and fourth counts but proceeded with calling a defence for the first and third
counts.

SUMMARY
The State brought charges against Armin Schwald for common assault, annoying a female, and
criminal intimidation. The incident occurred in Rotuma but was transferred to Suva Magistrate's
Court. After prosecution evidence and written submissions, the defence applied for a ruling of
"no case to answer" under section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. The court examined the
evidence against each charge and dismissed counts two and four due to insufficient evidence, but
ruled that the prosecution presented enough evidence to proceed with counts one and three, thus
requiring the accused to present a defence.

CASES USED
 State v Tegu [2010] FJHC 489: This case established the definition of "unlawful act" in
assault charges, explaining that any force applied to another person without justification
constitutes an unlawful act, regardless of the relationship between the parties involved.
 Sahib v The State [2005] FJHC 95: This case clarified the test for determining whether
there is a case to answer, emphasizing the need for relevant and admissible evidence
 implicating the accused in each element of the offence, and whether a reasonable tribunal
could convict based on the prosecution's case.

Judge: Yohan Liyanage

STATE v VAKARISE
IRAC METHOD
Issue: The issue in this case is whether Jone Vakarise should be found guilty of the charges
brought against him under the Crimes Act of 2009.

Rule: The applicable legal provisions for amending the information and determining guilt are
outlined in Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. This section grants the court the
discretion to amend defective information at any stage of the trial if it deems necessary, provided
it does not cause injustice to the defendant.
Under Section 275 of the Crimes Act 2009, assault causing actual bodily harm is prohibited.
Section 255(a) of the same Act criminalizes acts intended to cause grievous harm. Furthermore,
Section 375(1)(a)(i) prohibits criminal intimidation.

Analysis: During the trial, evidence was presented by the prosecution, including testimony from
the victim, Catherine Smith, and medical professionals who examined her injuries. Smith
detailed multiple instances of physical violence allegedly perpetrated by Vakarise, including the
use of weapons such as a knife and a cane knife. Medical evidence supported Smith's claims,
indicating injuries consistent with her account.
Vakarise admitted to some level of physical altercation with Smith but denied using certain
weapons and disputed aspects of Smith's testimony. He argued that his actions were driven by
concern for Smith's safety due to her pregnancy.
The court evaluated the credibility of both parties and found Vakarise's denials inconsistent with
the medical evidence and Smith's testimony. Consequently, the court held Vakarise accountable
for the offenses charged.

Conclusion: Vakarise was found guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm (Counts 1 and 3)
and criminal intimidation (Count 4) under the Crimes Act 2009. However, he was acquitted of
the charge of acts intended to cause grievous harm (Count 2). Vakarise has 30 days to appeal the
decision to the Court of Appeal of Fiji.
SUMMARY
Jone Vakarise was convicted of multiple charges under the Crimes Act of 2009 stemming from
an altercation with his girlfriend, Catherine Smith, on December 26, 2021. The prosecution
presented evidence from Smith and medical professionals, supporting her claims of assault and
threats. Vakarise admitted to some level of altercation but denied certain acts. However, the
court found his denial inconsistent with the evidence presented. Vakarise was found guilty of
Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm (Counts 1 and 3) but not guilty of Acts Intended to Cause
Grievous Harm (Count 2). He was also convicted of Criminal Intimidation (Count 4). The court
permitted the prosecution to amend the information under Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure
Act 2009. Vakarise has 30 days to appeal the decision.

CASES USED
1. Skipper v. Regina: This case is cited to support the Prosecution's application to amend
the charging sections in Counts 2 and 4. The Court of Appeal held that a defect in the
 indictment, such as inserting the wrong section number, is an irregularity and not a basic
defect in the proceedings.
2. Chandra v. State: In this case, the Fiji Supreme Court established the principle of
"Divisibility of Credibility." This principle allows the court to accept parts of a witness's
evidence that are deemed true and reliable, even if other parts are found to be false.

Judge: Hon. Justice Dr. Kumarage