Electrician’s appeal in teen rape case rejected
The Appellate Court has dismissed an appeal by an electrician incarcerated for the rape and sexual assault of a 15-year-old boy in 2018. The accused, who was 52 at the time, was convicted of two counts of rape and two of sexual assault by the High Court. He was sentenced in 2020 to 12 years and 10 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years and 10 months. Court records indicate that the victim was not attending school at the time and had accepted an invitation to accompany the accused to perform electrical work. The victim was then forced to commit sexual acts in the bathroom of a Suva apartment. He said he did not refuse because he was scared of the accused. He also did not tell his mother or anyone else because he thought it would not happen again; however, the incident occurred again in another apartment the next day. Appellate Justices Isikeli Mataitoga, Robert Dobson, and Gerard Winter, after their analysis, ruled on July 25 that they saw no reason to interfere with the judge’s sentence. The appeal was dismissed.
Fired HR manager’s case against university gains new life
The Appellate Court has ordered that the proceedings of a former human relations manager against the University of Fiji be referred back to the Employment Court for substantive determination. The dispute involves Vijay Kumar, whom the university terminated on April 27, 2019. Mr Kumar stated there was an investigation into his conduct in late 2018 that had exonerated him, but he was advised in March 2019 that there was to be a review of that investigation. This led to the university summarily dismissing him the following month. Mr Kumar is pleading that the university breached its employment contract by arbitrarily terminating his employment without exhausting disciplinary procedures contained in the contract, and by contravening the termination clause in the contract providing for the circumstances under which employment could be terminated. The court records indicated there had been no consideration of Mr Kumar’s substantive complaint because of a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Court to hear it. Justice Anjala Wati, in her ruling delivered in February 2023, accepted the university’s contention and terminated the proceedings on the ground that the ERC did not have jurisdiction, which Mr Kumar sought to reverse. In their decision, appellate judges Chandra Prematilaka, Robert Dobson, and Gerard Winter found that the relevant decision was not taken by the university under Section 6 of its Act. “As a body corporate with perpetual succession, the university has a range of powers including entering and terminating contracts that do not involve the exercise of specific powers provided for it under its Act,” stated the judges on July 25. “The jurisdiction of the (ERA) is accordingly not ousted by Section 173 (4) (d) of the Constitution.” The judges have allowed the appeal and ordered the university to pay the costs of $5000 to Mr Kumar within 21 days.
