Transcript
IQBAL KHAN: The judge made serious errors, misdirections and non-directions. We did feel in this case, the one who survived, Boila, he gave evidence in court and said that none of these persons either assaulted him or the other deceased Soko. So after that I made a submission of no case to answer but the learned judge eventually did not accept the submission on the basis that Boila's evidence was unreliable. Most of the state witnesses gave several statements to the police. They changed their stories several times, they didn't make their statements, or they did not sign it, or they did not read it, etcetera etcetera. So their evidence was so unreliable. Despite this fact, the learned judge accepted their version. Raising the point that the learned judge did not exercise his discretion judicially. We said the learned judge only took into consideration the state's submission. All the evidence before the court was [with] very serious doubts. Also there were approximately 25 to 30 officers that were involved and we are saying, why are they only selecting the prosecution for nine men? We are saying that, in view of what we have filed in the Court of Appeal, we are alleging that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.
KORO VAKA'UTA: I guess the question has to be asked, if this appeal is successful or if these men are not guilty of what happened, what did happen to Soko, given that the medical reports say he died from traumatic injuries and that sort of thing?
IK: We don't dispute the facts. We said that they were assaulted by somebody but not by the accused persons. We are saying that the state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that these were the persons who did it. In fact, Boila, gave evidence, he gave full names of other officers who assaulted him, on oath. So what we are saying the judge should have stopped the case against these guys and directed that somebody else should have been charged.
KV: So it still could have been police brutality but just a case of mistaken identity if you like?
IK: No. What we are saying is to look at all the evidence. We said, yes, they were assaulted, but who assaulted them? The law is very clear. The law states that there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt they did it. And some of the conviction is based on the basis that they are present there and it didn't stop. On that basis they were convicted. We are saying they had no knowledge whatsoever what others did.
KV: When will this all happen Mr Khan? Is there a timeline?
IK: Probably next year, it will probably next year.
KV: If it's to be held next year, what happens to the nine men. Do they just stay in custody?
IK: They're in custody, yes, they're in prison.
KV: Do you know what their current status is in terms of employment with the police?
IK: I have not inquired but since they have filed an appeal, their sentence should not standing now because they still present as innocent despite the fact they are convicted by the High Court, they have still got another avenue, the Court of Appeals. All of them, the witnesses evidence of character given by senior police officers, unblemished reports. The first time they have appeared in a court of law. They were capable men, very capable men, with an unblemished records.
KV: If this is a long drawn out process, is the expectation that they will be paid or their status within the police will remain, as you say, if they are presumed innocent?
IK: Yes. I take that view. Also on Monday I will be filing for bail pending appeal.
KV: For them to be out of custody?
IK: Yes. I will be taking to court that they should be granted bail pending an appeal on the grounds that there is a very strong chance of success in appeal.
KV: Even though these charges are of quite a serious nature?
IK: Yes. There is a guy who is charged with murder in Fiji who [is on bail] is pending appeal by the Court of Appeal.
