Rokoula v The State [1997] FJHC 193; Haa0047.97 (2 December 1997)

Fiji Islands - Rokoula v State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. HAA 047 of 1997

BETWEEN:

MALELI ROKOULA
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Coram: sticean

2 December 1997

Mr Anthony Gates ftes for the Appellant
Mr William Clarke for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Background.

p>

This Matter concerns an Appeal by Mr Maleli Rokoula against an Interlocutory Order made by the Magistrate sitting at Suva on 25 March 1997. On that day the Magistrate granted an Application made by the Prosecution to adjourn the Hearing against this Appellant (before him) until a specified date of 3 June 1997. Against that Order made by the Magistrate there is this Appeal.

When I first read the Grounds of Appeal, the Court Record, and digested the general history of this Case my immediate query (which I raised in Court again this morning) was whether I had jurisdiction to hear this Appeal against an Interlocutory Decision made by the Magistrate in the middle of his Court Proceedings. I think my query was well founded when I was referred to the Case of Mohammed Kalil v The State (Fiji Criminal Appeal No 4/91). In the second paragraph of that Judgement in firm and unambiguous words was that Interlocutory Appeals in Criminal Proceedings are inappropriate and ought not to be encouraged.

However since I had started this Hearing, and in courtesy to Counsel I determined to finish it and listen to the various submissions.

History of this Case

The Appellant faced one Charge of Defilement of a young Girl between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The Indictment containing this one Count is dated 28 June 1996, and the Matter first came before the Magistrate on that same date. The Appellant was unrepresented on that occasion and pleaded Guilty to the Charge. The Magistrate adjourned the Matter until 11 July 1996 for Sentence.

On the Return Date of 11 July the Appellant (still unrepresented) asked for his earlier Plea of Guilty to be vacated. The Charge was read again and the Appellant this time pleaded Not Guilty. He was released on Bail until 1 August 1996. Since that latter date he has been represented by Mr Anthony Gates of Counsel (who appears to-day).

I will not rehearse all the dates of Appearances before the Magistrate. Sufficient to say that more than 12 Months later the Case has still not been concluded. Since (and including) the 1 August there have been 8 hearings before the Magistrate up to 25 March 1997. From my scrutiny of the Court Record 4 of these Adjournments have been initiated by The Court; 2 by The Appellant and 2 by The State (including 25 March 1997).

Reason for the 25 March Application to Adjourn.

According to the brief Note of the Magistrate on the Court Record the Application made by the Prosecution was based on their failure to locate the Complainant who resides on Koro Island. Before the Magistrate, Counsel for The Appellant objected to any adjournment on the bases that:

(1) on a previous occasion the Prosecutor was not ready;

(2) the Prosecution had made no genuine effort to find the Complainant (there is no evidence of this apparent in the Magistrate's Notes: the reference there is that the Complainant could not be found and thus could not be subpoenaed);

(3) no valid reason had been given by the Prosecution to adjourn. (With respect, the absence of the Complainant by definition must have been a valid reason: plainly the case could not proceed without her).

Significantly the Magistrate did not make a decision straightaway but stood the Case down for further enquiries. Following these and a Report back to The Magistrate, the latter decided to adjourn the case until 3 June 1997 and he extended the Appellants bail accordingly.

Statutory Authority for Adjournment.

Section 202 of The Criminal Procedure Code allows a Magistrate to adjourn matters before him. There is an implied condition that a Magistrate must act judicially in the exercise of that discretion. I can find no trace in the present Papers that persuades me that the Magistrate acted in any other way. Certainly the Notes are brief, but in my Judgement the Magistrate acted perfectly properly.

This Appeal is therefore dismissed. The Matter is to return to the Magistrate for the Hearing to continue.

Final Points.

My examination of these papers highlight (and I am not apportioning blame) how long these cases drag on with seemingly endless delays.

The date of this alleged Offence was 2 July 1995 .......... 29 months ago. From the date of the matter first coming before the Magistrate to the date of the incident ( the subject of this Appeal) it has been 9 months: 'Justice delayed is justice denied'.

On that unfortunate note let me leave this case in the fervent hope that there will be no further delays and the matter can be expeditiously concluded.

Peter Surman
Judge of The High Court

2 December 1997