Two plead not guilty to aggravated burglary and theft
Two men charged with aggravated burglary and theft pleaded not guilty in the High Court in Suva yesterday.
On the first count Navitalai Ryland and Josua Vulimainadave with another unknown person allegedly entered as trespassers into the property of Suman Lata on November 8, 2017 with the intention to commit theft at her property.
On the second count of theft, they are alleged to have dishonestly appropriated a Panasonic television valued at $3000, a deck valued at $700, a black radio valued at $400, jewellery valued at $12000, a Panasonic microwave valued at $200, $2100 cash, a pair of Nike canvas valued at $200, assorted sarees valued at $3000, a gold Casio watch valued at $300, a black Nokia phone valued at $300, food valued at $200, four BH20 cigarette packets valued at $50, a torch valued at $30 and an iPhone 4S valued at $1500.
The total value of the stolen items are $23,980.
State Prosecutor Sujata Lodhia told Judge Justice Riyaz Hamza that they would be relying on both the accused men’s caution interview statements which had admissions about the alleged offence.
Vulimainadave’s lawyer Talei Kean sought 21 days to file her client’s ground to challenge his confessions in his Police interview.
First accused Ryland, who had waived his right to counsel at an earlier proceeding, said that they were both assaulted while in Police custody and there was a medical report to prove the same.
He said they were medically examined long before the case was transferred to the High Court.
The said medical reports were produced in court yesterday and copies were made available to the defence. Justice Hamza then advised Ryland to file a formal application and seek Legal Aid assistance so that it would be easier to file his challenging in court.
Ryland agreed accordingly and the case was adjourned to March 13, 2018.
The second accused’s bail was extended and Ryland was further remanded pending his bail hearing on March 7, 2018.
Ms Lodhia requested for time to file a response to Ryland’s bail application. She indicated that the State would be objecting because the accused had previous convictions for similar offences and had other cases where a bench warrant was issued against him.
Ryland’s production order was extended.
Edited by Jonathan Bryce
