{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f184\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f185\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f187\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f188\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f189\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f190\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f191\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f192\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid7158740 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive 
\ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\sl480\slmult1
\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid7158740 Body Text 2;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid7158740 header;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid7158740 page number;}}
{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid74447\rsid472115\rsid736465\rsid811014\rsid862776\rsid933470\rsid1009808\rsid1580370\rsid1598413\rsid1926901\rsid1972231\rsid2098852\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2371452\rsid2498049\rsid2504626
\rsid2506087\rsid2966353\rsid3176464\rsid3412306\rsid3422714\rsid3808029\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid3946455\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4400909\rsid4471503\rsid4720126\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173
\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5127462\rsid5132514\rsid5327575\rsid5512779\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid5662471\rsid5908088\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6953338\rsid7158740\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7818236\rsid7958375\rsid8016262
\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid8981764\rsid8998998\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9635384\rsid9647251\rsid9776131\rsid9834014\rsid9921991\rsid9963417\rsid10355983\rsid10500829\rsid10580927
\rsid10631831\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid11014019\rsid11292607\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12015529\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid13566608\rsid14055906
\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14567563\rsid14695321\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15096063\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}
{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author raikatalau_l}{\operator ruddley_e}{\creatim\yr2011\mo6\dy16\hr14\min26}{\revtim\yr2011\mo6\dy20\hr15\min8}{\version3}
{\edmins2}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords4447}{\nofchars25348}{\*\company Pacific Legal Information Institue}{\nofcharsws29736}{\vern24689}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin
\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1440\dgvorigin1008\dghshow1\dgvshow1
\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct
\asianbrkrule\rsidroot7158740\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3412306 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3412306 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3412306 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3412306 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brsp20 \tqc\tx3553\tqr\tx7293\tqr\tx8789\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5327575 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs17\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470 \tab }{\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid14567563 State v Deo Prakash}{\fs16\insrsid10500829  (HC)}{\cs17\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470 \tab }
{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470  PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs17\fs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3946455 10}}}{\fs16\insrsid10500829  }{\cs17\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5327575 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10500829 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10500829 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart State_v_Deo_Prakash}STATE v DEO PRAKASH
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkend State_v_Deo_Prakash}
\par High Court Criminal Jurisdiction
\par 24, 25, 29, 31 October, 2001 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab HAC 014/00L
\par }\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 admissibility \endash 
 Caution statement \endash  general allegations of assaults \endash  deprivation of sleep \endash  interview and reconstruction conducted late at night - whether obtained fairly and without oppression \endash  test of admissibility - whether wife}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s inculpatory statements about the accused amounted to improper pressure -}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Right to counsel \endash  Judges}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Rules principle (c), (e); 1997 Constitution ss23(1)(e), 25(1) and 27(1)(a), (c) and (f); Criminal Procedure Code s192 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par The accused challenged the admissibility of his caution interview, conducted in hindustani, alleging that police assaulted him by fists, kicking, use of police baton and putting chillies all over his private par
ts. Police notes recorded the accused as normal. The medical report was unhelpful. The accused alleged he was tired and wanted to sleep.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 PW2 gave evidence that he recorded in his note book that he asked the accused whether he wanted to sleep and the accused said it was OK.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
However, the note book was not produced to the Court. On the day of the caution interview, the accused was detained from 11am, the caution interview commencing at 8pm. According to police version of events, at the completion of the accused}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s wife}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
s interview there would have been sufficient evidence to charge the accused in compliance with principle (d) of the Judges}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Rules.}
{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 The Court found there was no clear or satisfactory explanation given why the accused was later interviewed under caution at night
, taken on a reconstruction of the scene from 8pm to 2.35am, and charged 5 hours after the time when there was sufficient evidence to so charge the accused. The accused may have been of physically tough character for a cane cutter by day, but the Court}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s observation was that his hindi was uncouth and unsophisticated, and he may not be used to be interviewed at night under caution.

\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Held\endash }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (1) 
The test is whether it is right and fair that a caution interview can be admitted. Cumulative breaches of the }{\caps\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 a}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ccused}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
s right to meet his spouse, he was not informed of his right to a lawyer, no risk of destruction of evidence, prolonged detention for two 
days and nights, late night interview and reconstruction of scene, deprivation of sleep, intimation by police and an unexplained five hour interval between interview and charge, and failure of the interviewing police officer to ask accused about veracity 
of earlier statement, results in a finding that obtaining of the confessional statements were unfair and oppressive.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
They are ruled inadmissible.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (2) Accused}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s wife}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s inculpatory statements about the accused could amo
unt to pressure where the wife was in police custody for about five hours before she communicated with her husband.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
It does not meet the standards of Constitution s27(1)(f). Police presence during meeting suggests intimidation as there is no requirement f
or police presence during a meeting between spouses; neither was the spouse treated with humanity and respect for inherent dignity. There was sufficient material from the wife}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s interview to put allegations to the accused under caution. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (3) Police cannot continue to adopt practices which the courts have stated to be improper. The Court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s role is not to punish police for failure to observe codes of practice, but in the new regime of human rights the Court must balance individual rights of the accused and th
e general welfare of the community. The cumulative breaches by the police amounted to serious undermining of the }{\caps\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 a}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ccused}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s rights.
\par 
\par The prosecution has not convinced the court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caution interview notes and charge statements were voluntarily made. Caution interview ruled inadmissible.
\par }\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Cases referred to in Ruling
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 D.P.P. v Ping Lin }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 [1975] All ER 175
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Director of Public Prosecutions v Epi Nabua & Ors }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 HAC 3/92
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Kuar Singh v State }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 AAU0001/92}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 

\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 R v Delany}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (1989) 88 Cr. App.R. 388
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 R v Goodwin}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (1993) 2 NZLR 153
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 R v Watson}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  51 Cr.App.R. 1
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 State v Mool Chand }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 [1999] HAC 3/99B 22 November 1999
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 State v Ram Lingam}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  [2001] HAC 010/00S 13 June 2001
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 State v Raymond Sikeli Singh & 3 Ors }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 HAC007/99L per Townsley, J}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Sudesh Jeet v State }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (2001) 1 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
AAU0036/99S}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Wong Kam-ming v The Queen}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  [1980] AC 247
\par }\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
Kevueli Tunidau & Josaia Waqaivolavola for the State 
\par Iqbal Khan & F. Koya for the }{\i\caps\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 d}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 efendant 
\par }\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 31 October, 2001\tab 
\tab \tab }{\b\caps\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 RULING}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Prakash, J
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 This case was set the trial on 24/l0/01. Certain evidence had been agreed between the parties under {\*\bkmkstart s92_CPC_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Section 92 
{\*\bkmkend s92_CPC_State_v_Deo_Prakash}of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 24/10/01 by consent of the parties the case commenced with a trial-within-a trial. The State called 13 Police Officers to give evidence. The accused made a dock statement. 
\par 
\par The objections to the admissibility of the accused caution interview to the Police on 6/08/99 and 7/08/99 is based on the following grounds:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (a)\tab That the statements were obtained in circumstances 
that were unfair to the accused;}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (b) \tab 
The accused was systematically softened to the interview in that he was kept in custody in circumstances which was degrading and inhumane and who was unjustly handcuffed from the time he was picked up until his interview; }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (c) \tab That the statements were obtained in circumstances that were oppressive; 

\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (d) \tab That the statements were obtained in breach of Rule 2 and 4 of the Judges}
{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Rules; and}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (e) \tab That the statements were obtained in breach of section 
{\*\bkmkstart Const_s23_1_e_State_v_Deo_Prakash}23(1)(e){\*\bkmkend Const_s23_1_e_State_v_Deo_Prakash}, 25(1) and 27(l)(a)(c) and (t) of the Constitution; }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 (f) \tab The accused was assaulted
 by several Police Officers as a result the accused made confessional statements. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 The State
 case centred its submission on the conduct of the caution statement. It is not necessary for the purpose of this ruling to restate the evidence and cross-examination of each Police Officer. These are recorded in the evidence of the Court. At the outset i
t must be stated that the Court has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caution statement was voluntarily made. It is for the Prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the confessions were voluntary (}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart DPP_v_Ping_Lin_State_v_Deo_Prakash}D.P.P. v Ping Lin}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  {\*\bkmkend DPP_v_Ping_Lin_State_v_Deo_Prakash
}[1975] All ER 175 and }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart Wong_K_Ming_v_Queen_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Wong Kam-ming v The {\*\bkmkend Wong_K_Ming_v_Queen_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Queen }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 [1980]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 AC 247).}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 The preamble to Judges}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 Rules sets out the basic principles for the admissibility of any statement made by the accused to the Police.
\par 
\par {\*\bkmkstart Judges_Rules_e_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Principle (e) {\*\bkmkend Judges_Rules_e_State_v_Deo_Prakash}states:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 T
hat it is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against any person, equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question put by a police 
officer and of any statement made by that person, that it shall have been voluntary, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him by fear or prejudice or hope of advantage, exercised or held out by a person in authority, or by oppression.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par The word oppression implies something which }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
tends to sap and has sapped that free will which must exist before a confession is voluntary}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 State v Mool Chand {\*\bkmkstart State_v_Mool_Lal_State_v_Deo_Prakash}{\*\bkmkend State_v_Mool_Lal_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Lal}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 , Labasa High Court 22/11/99 p.7 - Trial within trial ruling). 
\par 
\par At the outset the Court notes that the allegations of assaults were made in rather general terms against al
most all the Police officers who dealt with the accused while he was in detention. Allegations were of assault by fists or kicking or by the police baton and the putting of chilies all over the private parts. It was not clear from the accused dock stateme
nt which Police officers were actually involved in the assaults in terms of specific details. The use of the term }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 assault}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  has been as general as the term }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 normal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 when used by Police officers describing the accused condition at various stages of detention. The Medical Report (Exh 5) falls in the same trap. On the examination section it states: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 no obvious injury detected on all over the body of the patient}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 The Medical Officer}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s Report in Part A describes the brief circumstances of the incident according to the patient as: }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Victim alleged at Tavua MC today 9/8/99 \emdash  that he was assaulted by the Police.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  It is apparent the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 circumstances of the incident}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 was filled by the Police, not described by the accused. In Part B section 12 requires the History of the patient to be recorded. This simply states: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 As stated on part (A).}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Further, in section 13 Examination
 of Patient (a) Mental State, it is stated }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Calm. He was seen with handcuff on both wrists.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  It is quite clear that this was a professionally shoddy exami
nation. How can a patient be fully examined with handcuffs on? Without a history related by a patient how can a doctor fully examine a patient? Did he undress the patient to look at the private parts? What was the nature of assaults the doctor was examini
ng?
\par \line In this regard a perusal of the Rakiraki Magistrates}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 Court file is useful. The accused first appeared in Court on 9/8/99. His then Counsel Mr. Singh is recorded to have stated: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
Accused assaulted whilst in custody. Ask if accused could be medically examined. Request that he is not examined in Tavua as Police Officers from Tavua are involved.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  On his second appearance on 23/8/99 his counsel Mr. Shankar stated, inter alia, }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 I am not accepting accuracy of medical report served.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 The learned Magistrate had stated: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
In view of the fact that Tavua Hospital has no proper medical facilities for examination of heart problems and related chest pain alleged to be caused by the assault I order that the accused be taken to Lautoka Hospital for another examination of
 the alleged chest pain.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  On 6/
9/99 further requests were made for medical examination for the alleged assault. No reports were forthcoming apart from that tendered as Exhibit 5. The Court, therefore, remains in considerable doubt as to the nature of assau
lts alleged. In view of the Medical Report tendered the Court is not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that no assaults took place.
\par 
\par Learned State Counsel in his written submissions has adequately dealt with the conduct of the caution interview itself.
 He has outlined the phases of the conduct of the interview. The interview commenced at 8pm on the night of Friday 6/08/99. It concluded at 2.35am on the morning of Saturday 7/08/99. In between there was a reconstruction of the scene between 12.25am to 1.
00am. The total time for the conduct of the interview was 6 hours and 40 minutes. The summary breakdown of the 6 hours and 40 minutes, as provided by the state is:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 i) \tab 
Total duration of recorded interview questions and answers = 3 hours and 30 minutes}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  ii) \tab 
Total duration of breaks for accused to relieve himself, rest, have dinner and water refreshments = 1 hour 45 minutes}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 iii) \tab 
Total duration caution statement read over to accused at completion of interview = 40 minutes}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 iv) \tab Total travelling time to and fro
m Rakiraki Police Station and crime scene during scene reconstruction = 35 minutes}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 The Court has no difficulties with the format of the interviews and the length. However, the actual conduct of the interview cannot be considered in isolation. In this case, a
ccording to the evidence of (PW11) the accused and his wife were brought to the Police Station at about 10:40am. They were kept separately. According to (PW11) the wife was interviewed for 1 hour, between 2.00 to 3.00. After the interview she requested t
o see her husband, the accused. According to (PW11) and (PW12) she had stated that she was involved with love affairs with deceased. On 1/8/99 she was washing dishes when deceased came to see her. Accused was inside. While talk
ing she was startled. Deceased saw accused and ran. She saw accused running after deceased with cane knife. After sometime accused returned. 
\par 
\par She saw blood on cane knife and his body and shorts. She said accused told her that he had killed deceased and everything was over she was warned by husband to forget about everything. Told to keep quiet.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  She was shown the knife. She cried and made a request to see her husband. According to Police the wife told the accused that }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 she had told the Police everything about him killing the deceased. He should tell the truth about what happened.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  According to the Police the accused appeared quite normal when this meeting took pl
ace between the accused and his wife. This happened in front of three Police Officers. The accused}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s caution interview commenced
 at 8.00, some five hours later.
\par 
\par Prior to the 6/8/99 the accused was brought to the Police station on 3/8/99 and released on 4/8/99. He had himself come to the Police Station on 2/8/99 and reported the death of the deceased
. He made a plain statement to the Police which was recorded by DC 1840 Chin Sand (PW2). (PW2) formally charge the accused under caution on 6/8/99. (PW2) did not seek any explanation as to why the accused was admitting he committed the offence when he did
 not say so in his plain statement recorded by (PW2) on 2/8/99. There is no legal requirement to do so. None the less he was the Police Officer who got the accused to sign a declaration that: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 This statement ... is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have willfully stated in i
t anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Wouldn}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 t it be sensible to ask him about his earlier statement. He was now making a fu
ll admission. This would have avoided any allegations of pressure by those who interviewed him earlier. It would also indicate fairness by (PW2) in his dealings with the accused. (PW2) also stated that when accused was brought to him abou
t 2.45am he looked O.K. He stated that: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 I asked him whether he wanted to sleep and he said it was O.K.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  He recorded these conversations in his note book. \line 
However, he did not have his note book with him. This is clearly unsatisfactory given that Defence alleged that at that time the accused was very tired and wanted to sleep. This goes to the fai
rness of the conduct of the interview at that time of the night.
\par 
\par It was clear from the evidence whether accused was brought to the Police Station on 5/8/99 or whether Police visited his house on that day as part of their investigation. It is not clear when the clothes and other items shown to the accused during
 the caution interview were seized. According to inspector Saimoni Ratu (PW10) the cane knife (Exh. 4) was seized from the accused house on 4/8/99. In the absence of the Investigating O
fficer perhaps the issue remains unclear. On the day of the caution interview, that is, 6/8/99 the Accused was on detention from about 11.00am. His caution interview commenced at 8.
00pm. In itself such a period of detention prior to interview cannot be considered to be in breach of the constitutional provisions nor in breach of the Judges}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Rules. Under {\*\bkmkstart Const_s27_3_b_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Section 27(3)(b) {\*\bkmkend Const_s27_3_b_State_v_Deo_Prakash}
of the Constitution he should have been brought before a Court no later than 43 hours after the time of arrest. In this case the 48 hours would have expired on Sunday 8/8/9. As such his presentation before the Tavua Magistrates}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Court on 9/8/99 was wi
thin the requirement of Section 27(3)(b). However, the Court is concerned as to why there was a need to interview the accused on the night of 6/8/99 commencing from 8pm to around 3.00am the next morning.
\par 
\par The Hon. Chief Justice has stated: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 It always defie
s understanding why the police at times elected to interview suspects at very late hours \emdash  in this case after midnight.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 (Cr. Case No. 3/92 }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart DPP_v_Epi_Nabua_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Director of Public Prosecutions v Epi Nabua & 3 Ors}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkend DPP_v_Epi_Nabua_State_v_Deo_Prakash}). In this case no satisfactory explanations are provided as to why the caution interview commenced at 8.
00pm at night. The reconstruction of the scene at about 12.00 midnight is more unexplainable. The mere assertion that since the offence was committed at night the reconstruction was conducted at n
ight is not a plausible explanation. There is no independent evidence that the offence was committed at midnight. The Police cannot continue to adopt practices which the Courts have }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 stated to be not proper. According to the Police}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
s own version of events, by the completion of the accused wife}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s in
terview they would have had sufficient evidence to charge the accused in compliance with {\*\bkmkstart Judges_Rules_d_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Judges}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Rule (d){\*\bkmkend Judges_Rules_d_State_v_Deo_Prakash}
. The delay of about 5 hours has not been explained. No clear explanations are evident as to what happened to the accused during these 5 hours. 
\par 
\par In the case of }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal}{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 referred to earlier, the interview of the suspect Moo1 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 comm
enced at 2255 hours. At 2330 hours the interview was suspended for the night to allow accused and interviewing officers to rest for the night. The caution interview of accused recommenced at 0540 hrs}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}
{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (p3) As such there is no strict requirement that an interview has to 
be conducted unbroken past midnight. In this case an allegation of oppression would have been removed if the accused was given a proper rest at night, as is alleged he wanted. The interview and the reconstruction of the scene could 
have been done adequately the whole of Saturday 7/8/99.
\par 
\par The Court now turns to the meeting or confrontation between the accused and his wife in the Police Station. This was after the wife was interviewed. According to the Police she requested such a meeti
ng. What she is alleged to have admitted in her interview and what she said to the accused is strictly hearsay. However, we are not concerned about the truth of any statements made. We need to consider it in the context in which the state has 
alleged such statements were made. It is not clear on what basis the wife was interviewed. It is apparent that a plain statement was recorded from her on 4/8/99. In any case, she was brought to the Station along with her accused husband on 6/8/99. They 
were kept apart. The Court will never know under what circumstances she was interviewed. She was not a compellable witness for the Prosecution. The context in which she made the alleged statement that }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 
"}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 she had told the Police everything about him killing the deceased. He should tell the truth about what happened}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  is not clear. The Court accepts that she was not a person in authority. She was the accused spouse. Like the Police, or any other person, she could ask the accused to tell the truth.

\par 
\par In normal circumstances and in view of Section 27(1)(d) of the Constitution any visit or communication between the accused and his wife would be a plus for the Police. However in 
this case she did not come independently from outside the Police station. She was in Police custody for about 5 hours before she communicated with her husband. This was in the presence of 3 Police Officers. In such a context the wife}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s inculpatory statements about the accused could amount to pressure. One cannot see the meeting and communication between the hu
sband and wife as meeting the standards of {\*\bkmkstart Const_s27_1_f_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Section 27(l)(f) {\*\bkmkend Const_s27_1_f_State_v_Deo_Prakash}of the Constitution.
 They were not treated with humanity and with respect for his or her inherent dignity. There was no requirement for the Police to be present when the accused met his wife. Their presence could be viewed as intimidation suggesting that they know
 what the wife knew and would say to the accused. The Police had enough material from the wife}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s interview to put allegations t
o the accused under caution. \line According to (PW 11) when the wife made the inculpatory statements: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
I observed accused demeanor. He appeared quite normal. He did not verbally respond to his wife. He was looking down.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  
\par 
\par The timing of the caution interview in relation to the overall investigations is also relevant in terms of {\*\bkmkstart Const_s27_1_a_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Section 27(1)(a) {\*\bkmkend Const_s27_1_a_State_v_Deo_Prakash}and 
{\*\bkmkstart Const_s27_1_c_State_v_Deo_Prakash}(c) {\*\bkmkend Const_s27_1_c_State_v_Deo_Prakash}of the}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
Constitution. According to the Caution statement accused is asked whether he wishes to speak to your Solicitor before you give any statement to the Police. He is stated to have said }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 No}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 . One notes that this is at 8.
00pm on a Friday night. The accused was in detention from about 11.00am. Was he }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
informed promptly in a language that he understands of the reason for his arrest or detention and of the nature of any charge that may be brought}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ? (Section 27(1)(a) of the Constitution). The accused was also in Police custody o
n 3/8/99 and 4/8/99. Was he informed then and on 6/8/99 that he was likely to be charged for any offence? As Judges}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  
{\*\bkmkstart Judges_Rules_c_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Rule (c) {\*\bkmkend Judges_Rules_c_State_v_Deo_Prakash}states }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
. . . every person at any stage of an investigation should be able to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 Between 11.00am to 8.00pm there would have been no hindrance to the investigation if he was told about his right to consult a solicitor. Was he informed promptly of this right as per Section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution? This Cour
t does not need to traverse the succinct analysis of these constitutional provisions on the right to Counsel undertake by the Hon. Chief Justice in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  Shameem J has also traversed this in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart State_v_Ram_Lingam_State_v_Deo_Prakash}State v Ram Lingam}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  {\*\bkmkend State_v_Ram_Lingam_State_v_Deo_Prakash}(Cr. Case HAC 010 of 2000S). Her Ladyship has stated: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 The most appropriate remedy available for an accused person who is deprived of the services of a solicitor and who has not waived his/her right to a solicitor before he/she is questio
ned by the police, is the exclusion of that statement in evidence. It should not be necessary for the accused to allege that the statement was involuntary. A mere breach of the right, if it results in unfairness to the 
accused (as it would invariably) will result in the exclusion of the statement }{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 whether or not the statement is found to be voluntary}{
\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (emphasis in original). The right to counsel does not arise when the Police are already to interview an accused.
\par 
\par In his submissions learned State counsel referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart Kuar_Singh_v_State_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Kuar Singh v The State}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  {\*\bkmkend Kuar_Singh_v_State_State_v_Deo_Prakash}(Cr. App No AAU 0001 of 1992). The FCA states:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
What constitutes oppression that prevents a confession being treated as having been made voluntarily was considered by Sachs J. in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Watson_State_v_Deo_Prakash}R v
 Watson}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 , {\*\bkmkend R_v_Watson_State_v_Deo_Prakash}tried on 7 December 1965. He referred to what he said on the matter two weeks earlier in }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Priestley_State_v_Sudesh}R v Priestley}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Priestley_State_v_Sudesh}
. What he said in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Watson}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  is reported under the title }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Note to Martin Priestly}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  at 5 Cr.App.R. So far as is re
levant in these proceedings he said:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ...in [}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Priestley}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ] I mentioned that I had not been referred to any authority on the meaning of the word }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 oppression}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  as used to the preamble to the Judges}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 Rules, nor would I venture on such a definition and far less try to compile a list of categories of oppression. but, to my mind, this word in the context of the principles under consideration imports something which tends to sap, a
nd has sapped, that free will which must exist before a confession is voluntary\'85 Whether or nor there is oppression in an individual case depends upon many elements. I am not going into all of }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 them, they include such things as the length of time of any individual period of questioning, the length of time intervening between periods of questi
oning, whether the accused person has been given proper refreshment or not, and the characteristics of the person who make the statement. What may be oppressive as regards a child, an invalid or an old man or somebody inexperienced in the ways of this wor
ld may turn out not to be oppressive when one finds that the accused person is of a tough character and an experienced man of the world.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 [emphasis mine]
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par In his submissions learned State counsel, arguing the voluntariness of the caution interview, states: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
It is further submitted that the accused at the time of his interview was a cane cutter, someone used to the vigorous, tough and toilsome work of cutting cane in the scorching heat of the Western sun in undoubtedly long hours and at odd times such as ver
y very early in the morning or late in the evenings, light permitting. Thus he is a person of tough character and used to the ways of the world as defined in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Priestley }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 above.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 The accused maybe a physical tough character as a cane cutter and farmer. However whether he is used to the ways to the world is another matter. In his address f
rom the dock the court observed his demeanor. His Hindi was very uncouth and unsophisticated. His level of education is not known. He was interviewed in Hindustani. He appeared to the Court to be an unsophisticated cane cutter unlike }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 , an experienced security officer, and }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Ram Lingam}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  who appeared articulate and intelligent. He would, under Police detention, be unaware of 
his rights to seek legal advice unless so informed. As Shameem J stated in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Ram Lingam}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  case: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 No right can be waived, unless the Police officer concerned has clearly explained the right to the accused in simple terms.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  As such the Court finds that the requirements of Section 27(1)
(a) and (c) were not fulfilled. Further, he may be a tough canecutter in the scorching heat of the West by day but not used to be interviewed in the circumstances he was by Police at night. 
\par 
\par In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  the Hon. Chief Justice had stated }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 it is clear that the Police Department and in particular its criminal investigation branch would need to take earnest ste
ps to bring their officers up to date, if they had not already done so, about proper procedure and provisions under the new Bill of Rights for investigating persons under arrest or detention. This is a crucial regime in the m
odern system of criminal investigation and justice.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Learned State counsel referred to the case of}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  {\*\bkmkstart State_v_R_Singh_Sudesh_Jeet_v_State}
{\*\bkmkstart State_v_Raymon_Singh_State_v_Deo_Prakash}State v Raymond Sikeli Singh and 3 {\*\bkmkend State_v_R_Singh_Sudesh_Jeet_v_State}{\*\bkmkend State_v_Raymon_Singh_State_v_Deo_Prakash}others}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (Ltk Cr. Case HAC 0007 of 1999L). In that case Townsley J had considered various authorities the admissibility of confessions including }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 . This Court is aware that }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 The rights of the accused under Section 27(l)(c) are by no means absolute in terms, they must be balanced against other rights and of course the general welfare of the community.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ). Learned state counsel referred to Judge Townsley}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
s quote from the case of }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Delaney_State_v_Deo_Prakash}R v Delaney}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  
{\*\bkmkend R_v_Delaney_State_v_Deo_Prakash}(1989) 88 Cr App p.388 which states: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
But the mere face that there has been a breach of the Codes of Practice does not itself me
an that evidence has to be rejected. It is not part of the duty of the Court to rule a statement inadmissible simply in order to punish the Police for failure to observe the Codes of Practice.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  This Court has no business to punish Police. In the new regime of Fundamental rights, referred to by the Hon. Chief Justice in }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  the Court has to balance the individual rights of the accused and the general welfare of 
the community. It is the general interest of the individual accused and the community t
o have a fair, transparent and efficient investigation process. Police have to follow due process. They are ultimately accountable to the democratic process. They are as much bound to the Bill of Rights chapter of the Constitution as are the Courts.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par 
\par Whether we consider an accused}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s right as to have access to a
 lawyer information right or other rights in detention or the investigation process, the test we need to ultimately consider is whether it is }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 fair and right}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  that the evidence be admitted. Some of 
the factors considered in weighing evidence in such circumstances were articulated by Cook P in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Goodwin_State_v_Deo_Prakash}R v Goodwin}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  {\*\bkmkend R_v_Goodwin_State_v_Deo_Prakash}(1993) 2 NZLR 153 at 171:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
In New Zealand cases have already yielded a number of examp
les of good reasons, for departing from the prima facie exclusion rule. They include or may include waiver of rights by the person affected, inconsequently, in the sense that the Court can be satisfied that the admission would have been made without a bre
ach; reasonably apprehended physical danger to the law enforcement officer or other persons, other reasons for urgency such as the risk of destruction of evidence; and the triviality of the breach if it is only a marginal departure from the individual}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s rights}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  (quoted in }{\b\i\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Raymond Sikeli Singh & Others}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 ).
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par In this, case the cumulative effects of the breaches amount to serious undermining of the accused rights. The Court cannot say with certainty that if the accused had access to a lawyer on Friday 6/8/99, 
whether he would have made any confession. In this case there was by 6/8/99 at least no risk of destruction of any evidence. As indicated earlier there 
was no urgency in conducting the caution statement at night nor reconstructing the scene. It should be recognised that unlike in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Mool Chand Lal }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 and }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Ram Lingam}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
 the accused was not a sophisticated and educated person. In these cases there were partial challenges to the alleged admission. In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Raymond Sikeli Singh & Others}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  no admissions of fact were made by the accused persons in their caution statements. In the case of }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
{\*\bkmkstart Sudesh_Jeet_v_State_State_v_Deo_Prakash}Sudesh Jeet v State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455  {\*\bkmkend Sudesh_Jeet_v_State_State_v_Deo_Prakash}(Cr App No AAUU 0036 of 1995) the Court of App
eal in a most recent judgment (18/10/2001) considered the issue of admissibility. The FCA considered section {\*\bkmkstart Const_s27_1_b_State_v_Deo_Prakash}27(1)(b) {\*\bkmkend Const_s27_1_b_State_v_Deo_Prakash}of the Constitution
. In that case the prolonged detention for a period of two days and nights was seen as unfair and oppressive. This is not the situation here. The accused was detained on and off. He was in detention for an unbroken period of nine
 hours prior to his interview. He was not informed of his right to counsel during this period. The interview was concluded at night, commencing at 8pm and finishing at 2.
35am. The reconstruction of the scene at about midnight. The manner and circumstances of the confrontation between the accused and his wife in the Police Station is a matter of concern. The subsequent 5 hour interval in
 which accused treatment by Police remains unclear. Further, the Medical Report tendered does not resolve doubts about the nature of assaults alleged. Any doubt in this regard has to be resolved in the accused}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 s favour.
\par 
\par The Court has considered all the circumstances in the obtaining of the confessional statements. In the Court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3946455 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
s view when considered together these were unfair and oppressive. The Prosecution has not convinced the Court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caution interview notes and charge statements were voluntarily made. They are ruled to be inadmissible. 

\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
Objection to admissibility of caution interview notes and charge statements sustained.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 
\par }\pard\plain \s15\qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\insrsid7158740\charrsid3946455 Marie Chan
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3946455 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1972231\charrsid3946455 
\par }}