State v Seniloli [2004] FJHC 47; HAC0028D.2003 (4 August 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0028 OF 2003S

STATE

v.

RATU JOPE SENILOLI
RATU RAKUITA VAKALALABURE
RATU VILIAME VOLAVOLA
ISIRELI LEWENIQILA
PECELI RINAKAMA
VILIAME SAVU

Mr. M. Tedeschi, Mr. G. Allan & Ms A. Prasad for State
Mr. M. Raza for 1st Accused
Mr. A.K. Singh for 2nd Accused
Mr. S. Naqase for 3rd & 6th Accused
Mr. D. Sharma for 4th Accused
Mr. A. Seru for 5th Accused

Hearing: 4th August 2004
Ruling 4th August 2004

RULING

Counsel for the 1st and 2nd accused have made submissions about the manner of the closing address of prosecuting counsel in this case. In particular the suggestion is that, intemperate language was used, inflammatory language was used and language that was used which had the ability to prejudice the assessors, and that there were references to matters and the closing address of prosecuting counsel which did not feature in the evidence.

Counsel for the 2nd accused asks that I declare a mistrial at this stage in respect of the 2nd accused and counsel for the 4th accused asks for a strong direction to the assessors asking them to disregard any persuasive and strong submissions made by counsel in closing. I have considered the alleged offending words in the transcript of the evidence from Mr. Tedeschi’s closing address yesterday, and I have also looked at the various authorities that have been submitted to me. It appears that the offending words prosecuting counsel in those authorities are quite different from what is alleged in this case. I’m also satisfied that the way in which Mr. Tedeschi delivered his closing address yesterday was certainly strongly put. It certainly put the prosecution case in a very strong way, but that it was not intemperate.

I don’t think that it had the potential of prejudicing the assessors, particularly when I will as is customary to tell the assessors in my summing up that counsel have the right to make submissions. They have the right to make submissions in a very strong way, that is their duty as counsel but it is not evidence and the assessors have every right to reject what counsel have said in their submissions. That is my customary warning and I feel that any such warning would deal with the situation. In the circumstances the applications are refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
4th August 2004