Prime Fiji Limited has been convicted of one count of forgery and one count of using a forged document under the Crimes Act.
This was after the High Court in Suva overturned the judgement of the Magistrate’s Court acquitting Prime Fiji Limited against corruption-related charges brought against the company.
The company was charged by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) in 2016 with one count of forgery and one count of using a forged document.
It was alleged that Prime Fiji Limited had submitted a falsified Performance Security of Westpac Banking Corporation amounting to $351,865 for the street light renewals with the intent to dishonestly induce Fiji Roads Authority in their capacity as public officials to accept it as genuine and to dishonestly influence the exercise of their functions.
Furthermore, FICAC filed an appeal against the judgement delivered in the Magistrate’s Court on February 20, 2020, that had acquitted Prime Fiji Limited of both counts.
In his judgement yesterday, Justice Rangajeeva Wimalasena said: “I am of the opinion that the learned magistrate erred when she decided that actual acceptance of the false document was necessary for the second count to be proven.”
“I have considered whether there is evidence adduced to prove the above-discussed fault elements of the offence.
“There is ample evidence to show that Shane Halliday instructed his staff to forward the false document knowing very well that no such bank guarantee was provided by the bank to fulfill the pre-contract requirements of the Fiji Roads Authority.
“Undoubtedly, the evidence suggests that the only intention of the respondent company was for the Fiji Roads Authority officials to accept the said document as genuine and to influence the exercise of a public duty or function if the false document was so accepted.
“I am satisfied that the evidence adduced in this case proves the two fault elements in limb (a) and (b) of Section 157(1) beyond reasonable doubt. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the findings of the learned Magistrate in respect of the fault elements are misconceived. The appeal is allowed.
“I decide to quash the order of the learned Magistrate and set aside the acquittal in respect of the two counts.
“Accordingly, the respondent is found guilty for both counts and I enter convictions in respect of the first count and the second count.”
