{\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};}
{\f168\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f169\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f171\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f172\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f173\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f174\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f175\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f176\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\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 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;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1076408\rsid2905480\rsid12218689\rsid12718446\rsid12745023}
{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI}{\author blake_r}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo2\dy15\hr16\min13}{\revtim\yr2005\mo2\dy15\hr16\min13}{\version2}{\edmins4}{\nofpages3}{\nofwords1178}{\nofchars6716}
{\*\company USP}{\nofcharsws7879}{\vern16389}}\paperw11904\paperh16834\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701
\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot2905480 \fet0\sectd \linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\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\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par Appellate Jurisdiction
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 Criminal Appeal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480  No 56 of 1978
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 Between:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 AFZAL ZAINULLAH SHAH
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 s}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 /}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 o Hubdar
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 and
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 REGINAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 JUDGMENT}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 On the 22nd May 1978 at Suva Magistrates Court the appellant was convicted after trial of larceny of a pair of socks from Morris Hedstrom Limited and was fined $25.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 He has appealed through counsel, the original grounds being that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be suppo
rted by the evidence, and that hearsay evidence was admitted as to identity and ownership of the socks in question.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 To take the second ground first, this has no merit}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 as the socks in question were properly and
 positively identified by the head of the menswear department of Morris Hedstrom Limited, who testified as to his own handwriting on a label attached to the socks which established that they came from}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12218689 the me}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 nswear department of Morris Hedstrom Limited.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 As
 to the first ground of appeal, this Court has pointed out time and again that before it can succeed an appellant must shew that there was no evidence on which the trial Magistrate could reach the conclusion which he did reach if he properly directed hims
elf (}{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid12218689 Kamchan Singh v. The Police}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480  
(1953) 4 F.L.R. 69); and it is difficult to credit, in the circumstances of this case, that counsel for the appellant could have seriously entertained any prospects of success.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par The prosecution evidence established that during the afternoon of the 19th December 1977 in the vicinity of Morris Hedstrom Limited the appellant was seen behaving in a suspicious manner and appeared to be concealing something inside his trousers. He
 was detained and searched by two security officers and upon the appellant opening his trousers a pair of brand-new socks, identified as having come from the menswear department of Morris Hedstrom Limited, were found to be sticking out of the tight-fittin
g underpants he was wearing. He made no attempt to account for his possession of the socks and when subsequently interviewed by the police he declined to answer any questions.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12218689\charrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 However at his trial the explanation given by the appellant, under oath, was tha
t at about 12.30 p.m. on the day in question, after having a shower at his house, he took a pair of clean underpants from a drawer in his bedroom which also contained his socks, that unbeknown to him a pair of his socks had inadvertently found their way i
n
side the underpants, and that when he put on the underpants the socks remained concealed inside them; that he then took his wife and daughters to do some shopping, and walked around town in ignorance of the fact that a pair of socks were inside his underp
a
nts, other than feeling some irritation, until he was stopped by the security officers and asked to unbutton his trousers, whereupon the pair of socks which had come from the drawer in his bedroom were discovered in his underpants. I need hardly add that 
this preposterous story was rejected by the trial Magistrate, who rightly convicted the appellant.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12218689 
\par O}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 n the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant was allowed to argue additional grounds, which warrant no more than the following brief reference:
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12718446 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 (a)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12718446  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 That the trial Magistrate erred in law in allowing the prosecution to add an alternative count of receiving stolen property.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12718446 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 As section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code enables a court on a charge of larceny to convict a person of 
receiving although not charged with it, it was not necessary for the offence of receiving to be specifically charged. While the fact that it was added does not, in my view, constitute an error in law this ground of appeal, as counsel for the appellant con
cedes, is irrelevant to the conviction of the appellant for larceny.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 (b)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 That the trial Magistrate erred in law in holding that there was a case to answer.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 On the contrary, had the trial Magistrate not held that there was a case to answer he would, on appeal, have been directed by this Court to do so.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 (c)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 That there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the appellant stole the socks in question.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 On the contrary, the evidence led irresistibly to the conclusion that the appellant stole the socks 
in question and any other finding would have been perverse.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 (d)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
That in his evidence one of the security officers referred to the head of the menswear department having identified the socks in the presence of the appellant who thereupon said "Please think 
of my reputation"; that this reference to identification was hearsay and the comment of the appellant in breach of the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
udges Rules.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par This evidence was not tendered for the purpose of identifying the socks, but as evidence of the appellant's reaction, for which purp}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 ose it was admissible; and the J}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 udges Rules have no application to the comment spontaneously offered by the 
appellant. Even if they had applied, as the trial Magistrate specifically stated that he drew no adverse inference from the appellants comment this ground could not succeed.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 (e)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 That in his evidence one of the security officers testified that on the way to
 the police station the appellant offered to pay for the socks if the security officer let him go; and that this offer by the appellant was in breach of the judges Rules and should not have been admitted.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 There was no suggestion that the appellant's offer 
was made as the result of any promise, threat or inducement on the part of the security officer, nor in answer to any question from the security officer r}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 elating to the offence, so the J}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 udges Rules do not fall to be considered. Even if there had been a breach of the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 J}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 udges Rules, which there was not, this ground of appeal could not succeed as the trial Magistrate stated specifically that he drew no adverse inference from the appellant's offer.
\par 
\par That the trial Magistrate's judgment contained certain misdirections in law.
\par 
\par There are no misdirections in the judgment o\'a3 the trial Magistrate, who gave to the appellant the benefit of every conceivable doubt.
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 (g) }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
That in his judgment the trial Magistrate referred to the appellant "wearing a pair of swimming trunks under his trousers"; that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
there was no evidence the appellant was wearing swimming trunks and therefore there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023\charrsid2905480 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
In twenty years on the Bench I have rarely encountered a more frivolous ground of appeal. At his trial the appellant produced for inspection the garment that he wore beneath his trousers, variously referred to in evidence as "underpants " or "supporter}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 s}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 ," but which the trial Magistrate considered it more accurate to describe as "swimming trunks". This Court also has had 
the advantage of inspecting the apparel with which the appellant chose to gird his loins and I am in no doubt that it is designed as swimmin
g attire. Quite apart from its other features, although it has no opening at the front and no buttonholes it is decorated with three metal buttons embossed with anchors - an ornament more suited to swimming trunks than underpants. However the garment obvi
ously can be put to various uses e.g. as underpants and a receptacle for stolen socks, and nothing turns on the nomenclature.
\par 
\par During the hearing of the appeal I called upon the appellant to shew cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. In the ordinary run of shoplifting cases involving items of 
small value and persons of humble estate who, having succumbed to temptation, honestly admit their guilt, a fi}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12745023 ne of $25 may well be adequate. }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 But in this case, bearing in mind the appellant's position - a civil servant and high school principal and that there are no mitigating circumstances, a heavier fine is warranted.
\par 
\par The appeal against conviction is dismissed, and in substitution for the fine imposed by the lower court the appellant is fined $75.
\par 
\par In view of the unwarranted grounds of appeal, the appellant will pay $25 as costs.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12745023 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid12745023 Clifford H. Grant
\par Chief Justice
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2905480 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2905480\charrsid2905480 
\par Suva,
\par 31st July 1978.
\par }}