DPP’s Leave to Appeal against acquittal of ex-NFP provisional candidate allowed
he Fiji Court of Appeal has allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) leave to appeal against the acquittal of a 67-yearold ex-National Federation Party provisional candidate who was freed from sexual offence charges.
The man was facing five counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault charges.
It was alleged the man raped his 54-year-old sister-in-law in Nasinu on June 28, 2018.
It was also alleged the man approached the complainant and asked if he could spend the night at her house because he was too tired after a wedding and could not go back home.
The man was alleged to have started knocking on the complainant’s bedroom door in the middle of the night and then forcefully got into the room and allegedly raped the complainant.
After the trial, the assessors found the dentist guilty of the charges, however, the High Court Judge had acquitted the dentist.
Following the acquittal, the DPP filed leave to appeal on the grounds that the verdict of acquittal was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence presented in court by the Prosecution, among six other grounds of errors in law.
The DPP also argued that the trial Judge had not given cogent reasons when he disagreed with the assessors.
Appeals Judge, Acting Resident Justice Chandana Prematilaka said when the trial judge disagreed with the majority of assessors, he should embark on an independent assessment and evaluation of the evidence and must give ‘cogent reasons’ founded on the weight of the evidence reflecting the judge’s views as to the credibility of witnesses for differing from the opinion of the assessors and the reasons must be capable of withstanding critical examination in the light of the whole of the evidence presented in the trial.
“Obviously, the majority of assessors have not entertained a reasonable doubt about the respondent’s guilt however, I cannot say whether the trial judge also ‘must’, as opposed to ‘might’, have entertained a reasonable doubt about the respondent’s guilt at this stage to justify the acquittal due to want of trial proceedings and oral arguments by counsel,” he said.
“Therefore, I shall not endeavour to consider lengthy submissions of both parties and express any opinion at this stage on this ground of appeal.
“Therefore, I am inclined to grant leave to appeal so that the full court may consider the success or otherwise of this ground of appeal upon an examination of the record or the transcript with the benefit of full arguments at the hearing by both sides.”