Case commentaries
| Published date | 01 July 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712717717872 |
| Author | Jeremy Gans |
| Date | 01 July 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Case Commentary |
Case commentaries
Jeremy Gans
Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Children’s testimony – Fiji
Please remember, there is no rule for you to look for corroboration of the victim’s story to bring home an
opinion of guilty in a rape case. Corroboration is to have some independent evidence to support the victim’s
story of rape. The case can stand or fall on the testimony of the victim depending on how you are going to look
at her evidence.
The above instruction was given to three assessors who were asked to give the trial judge their
individual opinions on whether Rahul Ravenesh Kumar raped his seven-year-old neighbour. The pro-
secution case consisted of the testimony of the child (then aged eight), who said that the accused raped
her; a doctor who examined the child months later, finding that her hymen was ruptured; a relative to
whom the child complained months later; and her father, who said that he had returned to the house on
the day in question to find that the child had taken an unusually long shower. The accused testified,
denying the rape or ever being alone with the child, and called the child’s landlady, who said that she
thought the child was with her when the child’s parents were out. Convicting Kumar, the judge observed:
The assessors were directed on the issue of delay and on matters pertaining to evaluation of the evidence in
light of the inherent circumstances that had arisen due to the tender age of the victim. The assessors have
returned unanimous opinions of guilty. They appear to have, in my view, rightly directed themselves in regard
to the evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution and that of the defence. It appears that the assessors have
rejected the version of the accused and accepted the prosecution evidence in relation to each element of the
offence as charged.
A year after his appeal was dismissed by the Fiji Court of Appeal and after he was offered assistance
by Fiji’s Legal Aid Commission, the accused appealed to Fiji’s Supreme Court, which, although
sceptical about the reasons for the delayed appeal, granted him leave to appeal.
The Fiji Supreme Court noted that ‘[t]here was no dispute that there was no independent evidence to
connect Kumar with the rape of the girl.’ While s. 129 of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009 abolished
all corroboration requirements for sexual offence complainants, s. 10 of the Juveniles Act 1974 still
provided that:
Where in any proceedings against any person for any offence ...any child of tender years called as a witness
does not in the opinion of the court understand the nature of an oath, his evidence may proceed not on oath,if,
Corresponding author:
Jeremy Gans, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street, Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia.
E-mail: jeremy.gans@unimelb.edu.au
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2017, Vol. 21(3) 287–292
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365712717717872
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
To continue reading
Request your trial