NINE members of the security forces who were convicted by the High Court in Lautoka last week for the rape and sexual assault of robbery suspect Vilikesa Soko, who later died, have filed an appeal against their conviction.
The appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal in Suva yesterday by their lawyer Iqbal Khan of Lautoka.
Manasa Talala, Seruvi Caqusau, Kelevi Sewatu, Penaia Drauna, Filise Vere, Viliame Vereivalu, Jona Davonu, Senitiki Nakatasavu and Pita Matairavula were convicted by the High Court last Friday for rape, sexual assault and defeating the course of justice.
The nine accused persons were convicted by the judge and the matter was adjourned for mitigation and sentencing submissions.
In papers filed in court, Mr Khan stated 37 grounds of appeal against the conviction of his clients by the trial judge.
Mr Khan claims the trial judge erred in law in not taking into consideration the appellants submission of “no case to answer” at the end of the prosecution case.
Furthermore, he claims, the trial judge did not apply the relevant laws to the facts that were presented by the State.
He claims the trial judge erred in law and in fact in not recusing himself after he failed to consider or take into consideration the submissions made by the appellants’ counsel (him) based on law, facts and evidence.
The defence lawyer claims the trial judge erred in law and in fact in taking almost three hours to sum up the case.
“The said summing up was unfair, imbalanced and one-sided and hence a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred,” he claims in the grounds of appeal.
Mr Khan claims the trial judge erred in law and in fact in not adequately directing/misdirecting that the prosecution evidence before the court proved beyond reasonable doubt there were serious doubts in the prosecution case and as such the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants. He claims the trial judge misdirected and/or wrongly directed himself on the question of burden of proof and by such failure, there was a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The other grounds of appeal claim that the trial judge erred in law and in fact on other aspects of the case.
