State v Raqauqau [1997] FJHC 23; HAC0021.1996 (10 February 1997)

Fiji Islands - The State v Raqauqau - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 21 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

:

THE STATE

AND:

VILIAME ROKOSALU RAQAUQAU

nbsp;

Accused in Person

JUDGMENT

This prosecution highlights the very harmful consequences which flow from the failure of agencies ied in the administration ofon of the criminal law to do their jobs properly.

The stabbing incident which gave rise to these proceedings occurred on 27 August 1995 and the Accused first appeared in the Suva Magistrates Court two days later when he faced a charge of murder.

On 6 December 1995 after 8 quite unnecessary adjournments the Accused was committed to the High Court for trial.

After 11 months in custody the Accused applied for and was granted bail. On 24 September 1996 the charge against him was reduced from murder to manslaughter and an Information was filed. No explanation has been offered as to why it took over 12 months for the evidence to be reviewed and the charge reduced.

On 10 October 1996 1 held a pre-trial conference. Counsel for the Accused, Mr. Tui Savu failed to appear. Despite the fact that the charge has been reduced over 2 weeks before, the Prosecutor still did not know what Mr. Savu's attitude to the amended charge was; in other words, it was still not known how the Accused intended to plead. I was told that the case was ready for trial and would take 2 weeks to hear if fought. I allocated 2 weeks commencing on 10 February 1997 and accepted an undertaking by the prosecutor that she would discuss the matter with Mr. Savu and would advise the Court if it was to proceed to full trial. This undertaking was not honoured.

About 3 days before the trial was due to commence the Office of the DPP advised the Court that the pathologist, a very important witness who would have given evidence as to the cause of death had left the country. A notice of additional evidence was also filed.

On 10 March Mr. Wilkinson (who had not appeared before) sought leave to withdraw the manslaughter Information and leave to file an Information alleging a single offence of unlawful wounding, a relatively minor offence contrary to section 230 of the Penal Code (Cap 17) carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. Ordinarily, such offences are dealt with in the Magistrates Court.

In reply to questions Mr. Wilkinson acknowledged that the pathologist had still been in the country in October 1996 and indeed had not left until late 1996 or early 1997 but despite this fact no effort at all had been made to advise him of the trial date or to ensure his attendance at the trial until after he had left the country.

There is no excuse whatever for the deplorably slack way in which this matter has been handled both by the Suva Magistrates Court and by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Accused was quite unnecessarily detained in custody for almost a year. 12 months in custody is equivalent to a sentence of 2 1/2 years imprisonment. The Accused spent longer in custody than the maximum sentence which could be imposed upon him for the charge which he now faces. The depositions took 10 months to reach the High Court although the law requires them to be submitted " without delay" (Criminal Procedure Code -Cap 21- Section 244 and see also Chief Registrar's Practice Directions 2/87 and 7/96). At a time when the High Court is facing an enormous burden of work 2 weeks of Court time have been wasted.

When an unlawful killing occurs the parents and family of the victim as well as the general public have a right to expect that the perpetrator be brought to trial. In this case that is not to be.

As already seen the Accused has spent 11 months in custody. He is of previous good character, is from a good home and has a good job. He has pleaded guilty to the charge he faces. From the facts presented by Mr. Wilkinson I am satisfied that the stabbing occurred on the spur of the moment and was an act of youthful folly rather than one of serious malicious intent. In all the circumstances the Accused is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

I conclude by noting that Mr. Savo today appeared to represent the Appellant but was refused audience as he had not renewed his practising certificate (see Legal Practitioners Act -Cap 254- Sections 19 & 79)

M.D. Scott
JUDGE

10 February 1997