McCoskar v The State [2005] FJHC 496; HAA0085 & 86.2005 (15 August 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NOS.: HAA0085 & 86 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

DHIRENDRA NADAN
THOMAS MCCOSKAR
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Ms. N. Khan - for both Appellants
Mr. K. Tunidau –for the State
Dr. S. Shameem – for Human Rights Commission
Ms D. Herman – for Human Rights Commission
Ms S. Tabaiwalu – for Attorney-General
Ms M.R. Vuniwaqa – for Attorney-General

Dates of Hearing & Ruling: 15th August, 2005

RULING

Adjournment Application

At the commencement of this appeal without warning State’s counsel made an oral application for adjournment.

He based his application on a need he perceived to place before the Court certain affidavit evidence from representatives of various religions in the community.

Counsel explained his delay in doing so on the basis that he found it difficult to have potential deponents commit to an affidavit but was sure given time they could be convinced to do so.

I rejected his application for adjournment. My reason for doing so was that a further delay in hearing the appeal could not be justified.

The result of these convictions was that Mr. McCoskar after his appeal was lodged was placed on extremely restrictive bail terms that prevented his return home to Australia.

Timetable orders had been set. The State had had over 45 clear days within which to file any necessary papers. I do not accept that the State was unable to prepare appropriate affidavits, file and serve those documents within that time.

Indeed in my view the argument of the pressure of time completely lacks merit especially when one considers that the stark nature of this appeal was obvious from the outset and in effect while only having 45 days as a ‘reply’ period the State had had more than 3 months time within which to prepare and mount an appropriate argument.

For these reasons the adjournment was accordingly refused.

Gerard Winter
JUDGE

At Suva
15th August, 2005