[Photo: RIYA BHAGWAN]

Degei is charged with one count each of rape and sexual assault in relation to an alleged incident involving a former Virgin Australia cabin crew member in Nadi following New Year celebrations on December 31, 2024.

Defence Counsel Alifereti Waqavakatoga made the submission today during closing arguments before Justice Sunil Sharma at the Lautoka High Court.

Waqavakatoga highlighted what he described as discrepancies between the complainant’s first and second statements.

He told the court the complainant had initially identified someone else as the offender and had given different accounts about where she was seated in the taxi, who was present, and how the events unfolded.

The defence argued that the differences created a significant possibility that the second statement was a “reconstruction” rather than an accurate recollection of the events.

Waqavakatoga also pointed to the complainant’s evidence that she had been heavily intoxicated on the night and had gaps in her memory.

He argued that these factors created reasonable doubt and did not assist the State in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The defence also relied on medical evidence presented during the trial.

Waqavakatoga recalled that the doctor who examined the complainant told the court that the medical findings were inconclusive and could neither confirm nor rule out rape or sexual assault.

The State, however, argued that the evidence presented during the trial established that the alleged acts occurred.

State Counsel John Vaurasi referred to evidence from the taxi driver, who told the court he heard the complainant say, “I don’t like it,” during the journey.

The State also highlighted evidence that Degei held the complainant by the waist and pulled her towards a mango tree after they got out of the taxi.

The prosecution argued that this was inconsistent with Degei’s explanation that he was simply trying to help the heavily intoxicated woman return safely to her hotel.

Degei has denied the allegations and told the court during his evidence that he did not sexually assault or force the complainant.

He said he intended to help her after noticing she was heavily intoxicated.

The State also relied on medical evidence that the complainant had bruising to her breast and knee.

The medical evidence was described by the prosecution as being consistent with aspects of her account.

The prosecution also pointed to discrepancies in the defence case, including differing accounts about the number of friends who had gone out to socialise with Degei.

The State bears the burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The complainant’s identity remains suppressed by court order, and a protective screen was approved for her during the trial.

Justice Sharma is expected to deliver judgment on September 24.