State v Noa

• Jurisdiction: Fiji
• Court: High Court (Fiji)
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2025
• Docket Number: Crim. Case No: HAC 180 of 2023
• Date: 17 December 2025
• Counsel: Ms. N. Ali with Mr. T. Naimila for the State,Mr. I. Emasi for Accused

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Crim. Case No: HAC 180 of 2023

State

v.

Akuila Noa

Dates of Hearing: 05^th, 06^th, 07^th, 08^th, 13^th, 14^th and 15^th of May 2025, 09, 11th, 12^th, 13^th, 16^th, 17^th, 18^th, 19^th, 20^th, 23^rd, 24^th and 26^th June 2025

Date of Closing Submission: 14^th August 2025

Date of Judgment: 17^th December 2025

Counsel:

Ms. N. Ali with Mr. T. Naimila for the State

Mr. I. Emasi for Accused

Solicitors

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State.

Office of the Legal Aid Commission for the Accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The Acting Director of Public Prosecutions filed this Information, charging the Accused Mr. Akuila Noa together with another unknown person with one count of Murder, contrary to Section 237 read with Section 45 of the Crimes Act. As outlined in the Information, the Accused is charged either as a principal or an accessory. The particulars of the offence reads as follows:

COUNT ONE

Statement of Offence

MURDER: Contrary to Section 237 read with sections 45 and 46 of the Crimes Act 2009.

Particulars of Offence

AKUILA NOA and a person unknown on the 21^st day of April, 2023 at Samabula in the Central Division, as joint principles or either aided and abetted the other to cause injuries to VINAY VISHAAL PRASAD and the said conduct had caused the death of VINAY VISHAAL PRASAD.

2. The Prosecution called thirty-one witnesses and tendered forty-nine exhibits, while the Accused gave evidence and also called his father to testify for the Defence. Following the hearing, the Court heard the closing submissions from both parties. Additionally, the Learned Counsel for the Prosecution and the Defence submitted written submissions and a bundle of case authorities, which significantly aided me in making this judgment. Having carefully considered the evidence presented during the hearing and both oral and written submissions of the parties, I now deliver the judgment of this matter.

Burden and Standard of Proof

3. The Accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof on the charge against the Accused rests with the Prosecution. This is because he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. The Court must be satisfied that the Accused is guilty of the offence without any reasonable doubt.

Elements of the Offence

4. The main elements of the offence are:

• i) The Accused,

• ii) Engaged in conduct

• iii) That conduct caused the death of the Deceased,

• iv) The Accused intended to cause, or was reckless as to causing, the death of the other person by the said conduct.

Admitted Facts

5. The Accused tendered the following admitted facts under Section 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

• 1. The Accused person is Akuila Noa who is educated up to Form 6 at Lelean Memorial School.

• 2. As of 21^st April, 2023, Akuila Noa had resided at Block 2, Mead Road Housing in Nabua for the past 23 years.

• 3. He was arrested on the 26^th May, 2023 by the Police and interviewed via video recording at the Raiwaqa Police Station.

• 4. Akuila Noa in his video recorded caution interview had voluntarily given his consent for his bodily samples to be taken by Police for the purposes of DNA testing. That Police took his bodily samples on the 26^th May, 2023.

Evidence of the Prosecution

6. The Prosecution alleged that the Accused, along with another accomplice, entered the compound where the Deceased was working as a night Security guard and assaulted him, resulting in his death. The Accused strongly denied the allegations, stating that he was attending the funeral of a friend on the night of 21st April 2023, and then returned to his apartment at the Public Housing Authority flats on Mead Road, where he slept until the following morning.

7. The Prosecution presented the evidence so as to establish that the Accused committed this crime with an unknown accomplice. The thirty-one Prosecution witnesses can be divided into three main clusters, i.e., the witnesses who collected the crime scene exhibits and tested them for DNA evidence, the witnesses who resided at the two flats inside the compound and assisted the Deceased after the incident occurred, and the witnesses who collected CCTV footage from a neighbouring house and identified the Accused as one of the two individuals who walked into the compound on the night of the incident.

8. The first group of witnesses includes officers from the Crime Scene Investigation unit, as well as those attached to the Police Forensic Biology & DNA Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as the Biology Lab). According to the Crime Scene Investigators, particularly the evidence presented by PC Shivneel Ram (hereinafter referred to as Mr. Ram) and Acting Sergeant Vodonakadavu (hereinafter referred to as Mr. Vodo), 26 crime scene exhibits were collected. These included a piece of blue cloth, tied to the Deceased's left leg near the ankle; a pink-coloured knapsack; and the right side of a flip-flop. These items were tested and examined at the Biology Lab. The presence of the Accused's DNA was detected in the blue long-sleeve T-shirt, the pink knapsack, and the flip-flop. The Accused's DNA was found as a minor contributor to the DNA on those items.

9. The next group of witnesses comprises the occupants of the two flats within the compound where the crime occurred. Three Fijian nationals were staying in the upper flat near the garage, and other witnesses in this group were Indian nationals employed at a restaurant in Suva. According to the three Fijian nationals, the Deceased approached their flat and knocked on the door, requesting water, which woke them while they were sleeping inside. They discovered that the Deceased was severely injured and was asking for water. While they were offering water to the Deceased, they noticed his body was motionless. The three Fijian nationals then called the Indian nationals residing in the other flat, asking them to contact the Police. They carried the Deceased to the gate and attempted to place him in a taxi they had arranged. The taxi driver refused to take the Deceased to the hospital, as he was already dead. The occupants of the two flats then placed the Deceased on the driveway outside the compound and waited for the Police to arrive.

10. The last group of Prosecution witnesses consisted of the officers who retrieved the CCTV footage from a neighbour's house, along with the four witnesses who identified the Accused as one of the persons captured on the footage. The CCTV camera captured two people exiting a taxi and entering the compound. One of them was taller than the other. The taller one was wearing a hooded jacket, shorts, and shoes, while the other was in flip-flops and shorts. The shorter one appeared to be holding something, possibly a piece of cloth, in his hand. After a while, they left the compound.

Evidence of the Accused

11. As previously outlined, the Accused's defence was an alibi, claiming that he was elsewhere when this murder occurred at Bakshi Street, Samabula. His father provided evidence confirming that the Accused was at their flat on Mead Road during the early hours of 21st April 2023.

Evaluation of Evidence

12. Having briefly set forth the evidence adduced at the hearing; I now move to evaluate it so as to determine the evidential trustworthiness of the evidence adduced. The Court must consider two factors in assessing the testimonial trustworthiness of the evidence: the credibility of the witness and the reliability of the evidence. Credibility is linked to the correctness or veracity of the evidence, while reliability is related to the accuracy of the evidence. In doing that, the Court should consider the promptness/spontaneity, probability/improbability, consistency/inconsistency, contradictions/omissions, interestedness/disinterestedness/bias, the demeanour and deportment in Court and the evidence of corroboration where it is relevant. (vide; Matasavui v State [2016] FJCA 118; AAU0036.2013 (the 30th of September 2016, State v Solomone Qurai (HC Criminal — HAC 14 of 2022).

Circumstantial Evidence

13. As per the evidence presented by the Prosecution, there is no direct evidence establishing what had happened inside the compound that eventually led to the death of the Deceased. Hence, the Prosecution's case against the Accused primarily relies on circumstantial evidence.

14. Keith JA in Naicker v State [2018] FJSC 24; CAV0019.2018 (1 November 2018) has explained the nature of circumstantial evidence and its evidential effects, where His Lordship held that:

“It is sometimes said that circumstantial evidence is less compelling than direct evidence. What better evidence can there be than that someone saw the defendant commit the crime he is Accused of? But eyewitnesses can sometimes be mistaken, and they have also been known to lie. That is why it is also said that circumstantial evidence can be just as compelling, if not more so. If I go to bed at night and the ground outside is dry, and I wake up in the morning to find that it is wet – true, I have not actually seen it rain, but the inference that it rained during the night is irresistible. As long ago as 1866, 8 years before Fiji became a Crown Colony, a distinguished judge likened circumstantial evidence to a rope comprised of several chords. He said that “one strand of the chord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength.” One of the issues in this case is whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to justify the conviction of the petitioner for murder.”

15. Having outlined the nature of the circumstantial evidence, Keith JA further explained that:

“The essence of it is that the prosecution is relying on different pieces of evidence, none of which on their points directly to the defendant's guilt, but when taken together leave no doubt about the defendant's guilt because there is no reasonable...