Taito Rarasea the appellant appeals against a sentence of six months imprisonment imposed on 20 April 1999 by the learned Chief Magistrate for the offence of escaping from lawful custody contrary to section 138 of the Penal Code Cap. 17 as well as the sanctions imposed by the Commissioner of Prisons pursuant to sections 83(1)A(i) and (vi) of the Prisons Act Cap. 86 (the "Act") as the appellant had also breached paragraph 123(3) of the Prisons Regulations, (the "Regulations"). This consisted of reducing his eight month remission entitlement for the original sentence of two years by one month and seven days and giving him reduced rations for two weeks. In addition the sixty-six (66) days he was at large were added to his sentence under
paragraph 114 of the Regulations.

Section 43(2) of the Constitution allows recourse to be had to international instruments in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights set out therein. Reading article 10 clause 1 with section 25(1) the court is respectfully of opinion that the former reinforces the obligation to ensure that persons in custody are treated humanely and with dignity. This is supported by reference to the preamble, the compact and section 3 of the Constitution. The obligation includes the duty to provide sanctions for prison infractions that have due regard for the dignity of a person. Furthermore, article 11 clause 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which has been ratified by the Republic of the Fiji Islands recognises the right of everyone to adequate food. Where a country has ratified an international convention, it is an indication that it will not
take any action inconsistent with its commitments. As was stated by Mason CJ and Deane J in Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 128 ALR 353 at 357:

"Rather, ratification of a convention is a positive statement by the executive government of this country to the world and to the Australian people that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the Convention."

Those dicta are equally relevant to the present case. Any reduction in rations as was meted out to the appellant was not consonant with the Republic of the Fiji Islands undertaking to provide its people with adequate food. Although a state party's obligations under the said covenant are not mandatory, the action taken by the Commissioner was, in the court's respectful opinion, contrary to the spirit of the international instrument mentioned in the use of food as a means of control.

Although article 32(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners issued by the United Nations Commission for Human Rights (the "Minimum Rules") envisages the reduction of diet under medical supervision as an acceptable sanction, the spirit of our Constitution inclines the court to respectfully determine otherwise. It is difficult to reconcile the reduction of prison rations with the respect for human dignity that the preamble to the Constitution proclaims. It must also be borne in mind that the Minimum Rules were first approved in 1957 and clause 3 of its Preliminary Observation recognise "the rules cover a field in which thought is constantly developing." The concept of human rights has evolved since then
and from the vantage point of the Constitution, which came into effect in 1997, has also deepened in its scope.


https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Rarasea-v-Fiji.pdf