Chandra v The State [1991] FJHC 28; Haa0020.1991 (11 April 1991)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1991

Between:

PRAKASH CHANDRA
s/o Ram Lal
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. J. Naigulevu for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant was charged with Rape when he first appeared on the 19th January 1989 before the Nausori Magistrate Court. On that day his plea was not taken and at the request of the prosecutor the matter was adjourned to enable the appellant to be examined at St. Giles Mental Hospital to ascertain the appellant's fitness to plead to the charge.

Thereafter the case was adjourned on no less than 20 occasions until the 3rd of April 1990 (i.e. 15 months later) when the appellant (in the absence of a psychiatrist's report) is recorded to have said in answer to the charge:

"I am not Guilty."

Once again the case was adjourned until the 18th of July 1990 when again in the absence of a psychiatric report the appellant is recorded as having changed his plea from not guilty to:

"I am PG to offence of Rape."

On this latter occasion however the appellant appears to have disputed the facts outlined and the court changed his plea back to one of 'not guilty' and adjourned the case to the 12th of September, 1990 for hearing.

On the 13th of September 1990 the court record reveals that the appellant pleaded 'guilty' and admitted the facts outlined by the prosecutor. He was convicted and sentenced to 3 years 8 months imprisonment finally disposing of the case almost 21 months after the charge was first laid and more seriously (it appears) in the absence of a psychiatric report.

I say 'it appears' because although there is a psychiatric report on the appellant dated the 16th of June 1989 enclosed in the original Magistrate Court file, no reference has ever been made to the presence or contents of the report in the court record other than an entry dated the 14th of February 1990 to the effect that the report had not been received, yet the report in the file is stamped as having been received in the Nausori Magistrate Court on the 22nd of June 1989 almost 9 months earlier.

This court has had the benefit of perusing the appellant's psychiatric report, which concludes as follows:

"Because of his briefing by us (?) he (the appellant) is able to plead in court now, but he should not be held responsible for his actions as charged for he is not aware of it and its consequences."

Learned State Counsel referring to Sections 148 and 150 of the CPC accepts that the learned trial magistrate was wrong in convicting the appellant in the face of the report, instead he submits the appellant should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity and been committed to St. Giles Hospital for treatment pending the decision of the Governor-General (now the President).

Unfortunately this Court cannot agree. The appellant was found capable of entering a plea and is recorded as having pleaded guilty. The facts outlined and the medical report submitted by the prosecution and admitted by the appellant clearly supported the charge. Furthermore, his mitigation reinforces his understanding of the nature and wrongness of his actions.

At most the appellant's mental condition may be described as 'diminished responsibility' but he is neither legally nor clinically insane. Needless to say the psychiatrist's report did not express that view nor is this the appellant's first conviction.

In the circumstances the appellant's conviction is upheld. His sentence however, ought not to have been made to begin on the 20th of September 1990 for no proper reason attributable to the appellant and in the circumstances is reduced to 3 years and ordered to take effect from the 19th of January 1989 when the charge was first laid against him.

Subject to the above adjustments to the appellant's sentence this appeal is dismissed.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
11th April, 1991.