CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0002 OF 1996 p class=MsoNormal alal align=center style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> THE STATE
MAIKA SOQONAIRI
<1"> Counsel: Ms Rtimayin for The State
Mr. T. Fa for Accused
Hearing on Voire Dire: 5th and 6th August 1997
Decision: 6th August 1997 ORAL DECISION OF PAIN J.
ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COPIES OF STATEMENTS
As part of the prosecution case, the prosecutor seeks to produce copies of the caution and charge statements made by the Accused.
Counsel for the Accused objected. Evidence has been heard.
The evidence given by the witnesses caby the prosecution has not been challenged by the defence. nce. None of those witnesses have
been cross-examined.
The evidence shows toth the caution and charge statements were recorded in writing in duplicate with an originaiginal and carbon copy
being prepared at the same time. Both original statements were tendered at the Preliminary Inquiry in the Magistrates Court by the
officer in charge of this case.
The record sent to the High Court from the Magistrates Court did not include those original statements. A search has been made in
the High Court and the original statements cannot be located. The duplicate file and copy of the depositions retained in the Magistrates
Court cannot be located. A search for them and the original charge and caution statements has been unsuccessful.
On the basis of this evidence the carbon copies are clearly admissible.
There is clear proof that the original documents were prd and signed. Indeed the signatures carry through to the cahe carbon copies
that the prosecution is seeking to produce.
ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Those originalments cannot now be found despite due search having been made for them.
The carbon copies are obviously copies of the original dot.
On the basis of the authorities submitted by counsel for the prosecution and the text book writings on this subject such as contained
in Cross on Evidence and Archbold's Criminal Law, these copies are clearly admissible. Grounds have been made out for their production
as secondary evidence.
Indeed it could well be that on the authority of the decision in Durston v Mercuri 1969 Vian Reports 507 tendered byed by counsel for prosecution, these carbon copies may be admitted as primary evidence. There is
no suggestion that they are anything other than true carbon copies identical with the originals in every way and that they bear the
signature impression of the Accused.
There is no merit whatever in the objection raised by the defence. The admissibility of the carboies has not been challengedenged
by cross-examination of the witnesses or legal argument. The defence has occasioned a time wasting exercise that does no credit to
the administration of justice in this criminal Court.
The carbon copies are admissible.
ass=MsoNormal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 
