[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2003 >> [2003] VUSC 73

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Public Prosecutor v Yaput [2003] VUSC 73; Criminal Case 057 of 2002 (28 February 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 57 of 2002

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-v-

STEVEN YAPUT
NIWASA RAMANA

RULING ON VOIR DIRE

Both defendants made statements to the police. They challenge the admissibility of those statements. I have heard the evidence of Wilson Abiut, Gerard Malere and Delphine Vuti. Niwasa Ramana and Steven Yaput also gave evidence.

The principal complaints were that the defendants were not told the effects of any admissions, they were not offered a lawyer and that Niwasa’s statement was largely a rewrite of the complainant’s statement.

I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary and made in the knowledge of the consequences of making them. There is no real dispute that both defendants were cautioned. All three police officers say that happened. The caution itself sets out the fact any statement can be used in evidence. It does not have to say “and this might lead to a conviction which itself might lead to prison”.

I accept the evidence of Abiut and Malere. Both say a caution was given. It is typed and signed on the form. Neither could say that a lawyer was offered. Inspector Vuti, an experienced officer, says a lawyer was offered. I accept her evidence. She stated it is something that is done as a matter of routine and was done in this case.

Neither defendant had been arrested and interviewed at a police station before. They were vague about what happened, even when presented with the written record. It must have come as a surprise when they were arrested several months after the incident itself.

I have compared the written statement of the complainant and that of Niwasa. I do not accept the latter is a rewrite of the former. For example Niwasa describe the reasons for what happened in far more detail than was told to the complainant. In her statement the complainant says Niwasa held her down. Niwasa says she left the room.

Accordingly I rule both statements of the defendants admissible.

Dated at Port Vila, this 28th day of February 2003.

R. J. COVENTRY
Judge.