Summary: The Fiji Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a 52-year-old electrician convicted of raping and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy in 2018. The court said there was no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment and sentence. Separately, the Court of Appeal revived a former human resources manager’s claim against the University of Fiji, sending the matter back to the Employment Relations Court for full consideration and ordering the university to pay $5,000 in costs. In related developments, another case involving a 73-year-old electrician in Navua resulted in a conviction on several sexual-offense charges, underscoring ongoing attention to crimes against minors in the country.
The appellate ruling on the electrician’s case
The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the electrician who is serving a 12-year and 10-month prison term, with a non-parole period of 10 years and 10 months, after being found guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault in connection with acts against a 15-year-old boy in 2018. The victim, who at the time was not attending school, accepted an invitation to accompany the accused for electrical work and was later subjected to sexual acts in a bathroom of a Suva apartment. The victim testified that he did not resist out of fear and did not disclose the abuse to his mother or others because he believed it would not happen again; however, a similar incident occurred the following day in another apartment. Appellate Justices Isikeli Mataitoga, Robert Dobson, and Gerard Winter reviewed the case and, on July 25, found no grounds to disturb the trial judge’s sentence, thereby dismissing the appeal.
The university dispute returns to the Employment Relations Court
In a separate decision, the Appellate Court allowed Vijay Kumar’s challenge against the University of Fiji to proceed, directing that his employment dispute be referred back to the Employment Relations Court for substantive determination. Kumar, who was the university’s human resources manager, was terminated on April 27, 2019, following an earlier investigation into alleged misconduct. Kumar contends that the university breached his employment contract by terminating him without exhausting disciplinary procedures and in contravention of the contract’s termination clauses. The Employment Relations Court had previously sua sponte concluded it lacked jurisdiction, a decision the appellate panel overruled. The judges stated that the university, as a corporate body, has broad contracting powers beyond those strictly defined in the University of Fiji Act, so the ERA’s jurisdiction is not precluded by constitutional provisions. The court also ordered the university to pay Kumar its legal costs of $5,000 within 21 days.
Related developments and broader context
– In a separate but related case, a 73-year-old electrician in Navua was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against a former Class 8 student. The victim, now 17, had known the accused as someone who repaired appliances and had previously visited her home. The trial established a series of offenses, including rape and related sexual acts, with sentencing to follow. The case highlights ongoing concerns about sexual offenses involving minors and the judiciary’s role in accountability and protection for vulnerable individuals.
– The broader pattern in Fiji courts shows continued attention to due process, fair hearing rights, and the balance between employer-employee rights in workplace disputes, as illustrated by Kumar’s revived claim against the University of Fiji and the university’s obligation to meet costs in the appellate ruling.
Commentary and implications
– The electrician case reinforces the court’s stance on upholding serious penalties for sexual offenses against minors and confirms that appellate review did not find fault with the sentence imposed.
– The Kumar decision signals a push toward greater clarity on jurisdiction in employment disputes and emphasizes that universities and similar institutions must adhere to contractual and procedural protections when terminating staff.
– Taken together, these decisions reflect the judiciary’s ongoing commitment to fairness, accountability, and the protection of vulnerable individuals, while also clarifying the legal avenues available to employees challenging organizational actions.
Possible takeaways for readers
– Victims and whistleblowers are encouraged to pursue lawful channels, confident that the courts will review serious matters thoroughly.
– Employers and educational institutions should ensure disciplinary procedures and termination processes align with contractual terms and statutory frameworks to avoid jurisdictional or procedural pitfalls.
– The legal system appears to be reinforcing a consistent standard of due process across civil and criminal matters, offering clearer guidance for future cases.
Short recap
– Appellate Court rejects the electrician’s appeal and upholds the High Court’s rape-sentencing decision.
– Appellate Court revives Vijay Kumar’s employment-dispute case against the University of Fiji, sending it back to the Employment Relations Court and ordering $5,000 in costs.
– A separate Navua case results in the conviction of a 73-year-old electrician for offenses against a minor, underscoring ongoing vigilance in protecting young people.
Overall, the developments convey a hopeful message about the justice system’s capacity to handle complex cases with due process, accountability, and attention to the rights of both victims and workers.
Leave a comment