Manifest and latent functions of dating

26-Jan-2018 05:03

the appellant who was drunk went to the kitchen where the complainant was baking a cake. In this latter regard it might be beneficial to consider the form and contents of the trial magistrates RULING which comprises ten typed-written pages which may be apportioned as follows: - 1 1/2 pages are devoted to the complainants evidence followed by: - 5 1/2 pages of references to cases and judicial dicta dealing with the elements of rape; corroboration; the approach of the courts to corroboration and the nature and relevance of evidence of recent or early complaint. The matter then proceeded to hearing in Chambers accordingly.

He took her behind the dining hall and into a cassava patch where they had sexual intercourse under a mango tree. This general discourse on the law is then followed by: - 1 page in which the trial magistrate makes two findings of corroboration provided by two items of evidence namely, the medical report (Ex.1) and the evidence of recent complaint by the complainants mother (P. Plaintiffs submission The plaintiffs counsel submits that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor (lessee) of the said land on which is erected a residential dwelling-house.

I find that he fell into an error and the conviction cannot stand in view of the said proviso. and (at p.10) where he says: I find the evidence of the two accused so inherently incredible that no reasonable person could believe it. and later his lordship said: In this case there may well have been good reasons for rejecting the evidence of the accused and of the witness called on his behalf. The tenancy of the land is 20 years from 1.7.80 expiring on 1.7.2000 under ALTA (vide Annexure A to Plaintiffs affidavit filed 8.6.98).

In Bari (supra) Grant CJ (the then Chief Justice) referred to another case of Akuila Kuboutawa and Reginam (Labasa Criminal Appeal No. There is no reference whatsoever to the 1st accused denying the charge in the trial magistrates judgment. (as he then was) in setting aside the conviction in Mano Datt Sharma v. But there is nothing in the judgment to indicate that that evidence was taken into account at all. It is not simply a matter of implicitly rejecting evidence of an apparently far fetched story told by the accused (or his witness). it is well established that the evidence of complaints made by the victim of alleged sexual assault, if made at the first opportunity and to a person in authority, are admissible in evidence, not as corroboration of the girls story, but for the purpose of showing consistency in her evidence. The defendant has fenced part of the property without the plaintiffs permission.

Although he told the Magistrates Court that he thought she was aged more than 16 a plea of not guilty was not entered by the Magistrate who proceeded to convict. The birth certificate (Ex.2) and a medical report of the complainant (Ex.1) was also exhibited pursuant to Section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap.21).

The High Court quashed the conviction and emphasised that an available statutory defence must be raised by the Court even if not raised by an unrepresented accused. At the close of the prosecution case the appellants elected and gave sworn evidence and each called a witness in his defence, namely, the mother and wife of the second appellant.

It appears that in the case before the learned magistrate he was of the impression that because of the appellants involvement in sexual intercourse with the complainant for previous 12 months was sufficient compliance with section 156(1) (a). These are (at p.2) where he says: The second accused denied raping her. R.136 said at p.139: In so far as the judgment indicates the learned magistrates process of thought in considering the evidence adduced, there is nothing to show that he took the defence case, and the evidence in support of it, into consideration at all. The defendant, he says, has no equitable interest in the land.

2/75) which was also a case of defilement in which he comments on the requirements of s.156 (1) (a) (previously section 150(1) (a)) and that is worth nothing. Then there is the distinct probability that the trial magistrate in convicting the appellants failed to consider the evidence against each separately and, in failing to consider the second appellants evidence and that of his witness, may well have bolstered the case against him by relying on evidence only admissible against the first appellant. (my underlining) Plainly again on this aspect the trial magistrate misdirected himself as to what evidence was capable of affording corroboration in law. The plaintiff says that the provisions of ALTA do not apply to the defendant for neither of them were given permission to cultivate the land nor did the defendant do any cultivation. The plaintiff further argues that the total area of the land is 3 acres 1 rood 3 perches of which he himself is entitled to only half.

He said: I might add for the guidance of Magistrates that, in the case of an unrepresented accused, any statutory defence should be brought to his attention. The relevant principle is set out in the following passage in Garrow and Spences Criminal Law (4th edn.) at p.365 where the learned authors say: Where several ... R.48 at p.54: We do not question for one moment that in a joint trial of several accused persons, a Magistrate should proceed in the same way as a jury or assessors would be directed to proceed. (my underlining) In similar vein the Fiji Court of Appeal said in Mohammed Hamidullah Khan v. Furthermore before evidence of recent complaint can to be admissible and relied upon, the person to whom the complaint was made must be called as a witness to testify as to the nature and circumstances under which the complaint was made by the complainant. App.35 of 1979 (unreported), I order a retrial before a different magistrate. The other half belongs to his late brother Ram Narayan and his successors.

11/75) Appeal against conviction and sentence in the Magistrates Court. Rabuku for State Pathik J: Appellant was convicted in the Labasa Magistrates Court on his own plea of the offence of defilement of a girl between thirteen and sixteen years of age contrary to section 156(1)(a) of the Penal Code. Five days later the appellants were sentenced each to five years imprisonment and five strokes of corporal punishment.

The particulars of offence are that on 31 March 1999 at Natewa Village, Savusavu in the Northern Division he had unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl namely Loata Rokodovu of the age of 15 years 8 months 17 days. The appellants now appeal against their conviction and sentences on numerous grounds which may be condensed into the following: (1) that the trial was not conducted fairly; (2) the trial magistrate misdirected himself on the evidence of recent complaint and corroboration; (3) failed to properly evaluate the evidence in the case including that of the defence witnesses; and (4) the sentences are harsh and excessive.

It appears that in the case before the learned magistrate he was of the impression that because of the appellants involvement in sexual intercourse with the complainant for previous 12 months was sufficient compliance with section 156(1) (a). These are (at p.2) where he says: The second accused denied raping her. R.136 said at p.139: In so far as the judgment indicates the learned magistrates process of thought in considering the evidence adduced, there is nothing to show that he took the defence case, and the evidence in support of it, into consideration at all. The defendant, he says, has no equitable interest in the land.2/75) which was also a case of defilement in which he comments on the requirements of s.156 (1) (a) (previously section 150(1) (a)) and that is worth nothing. Then there is the distinct probability that the trial magistrate in convicting the appellants failed to consider the evidence against each separately and, in failing to consider the second appellants evidence and that of his witness, may well have bolstered the case against him by relying on evidence only admissible against the first appellant. (my underlining) Plainly again on this aspect the trial magistrate misdirected himself as to what evidence was capable of affording corroboration in law. The plaintiff says that the provisions of ALTA do not apply to the defendant for neither of them were given permission to cultivate the land nor did the defendant do any cultivation. The plaintiff further argues that the total area of the land is 3 acres 1 rood 3 perches of which he himself is entitled to only half.He said: I might add for the guidance of Magistrates that, in the case of an unrepresented accused, any statutory defence should be brought to his attention. The relevant principle is set out in the following passage in Garrow and Spences Criminal Law (4th edn.) at p.365 where the learned authors say: Where several ... R.48 at p.54: We do not question for one moment that in a joint trial of several accused persons, a Magistrate should proceed in the same way as a jury or assessors would be directed to proceed. (my underlining) In similar vein the Fiji Court of Appeal said in Mohammed Hamidullah Khan v. Furthermore before evidence of recent complaint can to be admissible and relied upon, the person to whom the complaint was made must be called as a witness to testify as to the nature and circumstances under which the complaint was made by the complainant. App.35 of 1979 (unreported), I order a retrial before a different magistrate. The other half belongs to his late brother Ram Narayan and his successors.11/75) Appeal against conviction and sentence in the Magistrates Court. Rabuku for State Pathik J: Appellant was convicted in the Labasa Magistrates Court on his own plea of the offence of defilement of a girl between thirteen and sixteen years of age contrary to section 156(1)(a) of the Penal Code. Five days later the appellants were sentenced each to five years imprisonment and five strokes of corporal punishment.The particulars of offence are that on 31 March 1999 at Natewa Village, Savusavu in the Northern Division he had unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl namely Loata Rokodovu of the age of 15 years 8 months 17 days. The appellants now appeal against their conviction and sentences on numerous grounds which may be condensed into the following: (1) that the trial was not conducted fairly; (2) the trial magistrate misdirected himself on the evidence of recent complaint and corroboration; (3) failed to properly evaluate the evidence in the case including that of the defence witnesses; and (4) the sentences are harsh and excessive.The Order applies where the occupier has entered into occupation without licence or consent; and this Order also applies to a person who has entered into possession of land with a licence but has remained in occupation without a licence, except perhaps where there has been the grant of a licence for a substantial period and the licensee holds over after the determination of the licence (Bristol Corp. Now after so many years of him occupying the land as a licensee (term used by plaintiff), he is being evicted under Order 113 which as already stated is applicable inter alia, to a trespasser.