Matairavula v State [2010] FJHC 171; HAM042.2009 (21 May 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 42 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

PENI MATAIRAVULA
APPLICANT

AND

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 7 May 2010
Date of Ruling: 21 May 2010

Applicant in Person
Mr. J. Singh for the State

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

[1] The applicant has made an application to this Court to stay proceedings in four Nadi Criminal Cases being Numbers 145 of 2006, 998 of 2006, 999 of 2006 and 1000 of 2006. He prays that they have been delayed for a prolonged period, thereby denying him justice.

[2] The Nadi Criminal Case No. 145 of 2006 is a case against Guston Kean and therefore of no relevance to this application but it does suggest that the applicant within has based his extremely legalistic application on that of Mr. Guston Kean, a prolific litigant before the High Court. This ruling will therefore be confined to the cases in which the applicant is named as the accused, that is 998, 999 and 1000 of 2006. He has other cases before the Nadi Court but makes no application in respect of those.

[3] The applicant cites many cases from Fiji and from England in support of his application and concludes that the substantial delay "has greatly contributed to an unfair trial since all my witnesses have migrated and are deceased".

[4] The State has filed a very detailed and very learned submission in reply and has analysed in detail the history of the cases, including the history of cases not even the subject of the application.

[5] Both the applicant and the State seem to have missed a glaringly obvious point in that in each one of these cases, after long delays occasioned mostly by the applicant himself, the applicant HAS PLEADED GUILTY. Counsel for the State did note this point, but then went on in great detail to analyse and apply the four part test as laid down by the Fiji Court of Appeal (he fails to say in which case) to show how a permanent stay was not justified.

[6] The unequivocal plea of guilty has two effects in this context:

(i) It must be a waiver to any claim of undue delay.

(ii) The applicant cannot possibly be prejudiced in his trial, because there will be no trial. His deceased witnesses overseas will not be needed.

[7] The application is totally frivolous and wasteful of the Court’s time. I am particularly mindful of the dicta in the case of Mohammed Sharif Salim v State – Misc. Action 17 of 2007 when the Court of Appeal said:

"It must be remembered that delay is often a strategy to avoid justice. The law on stay must not make an abuse of the processes of the Courts, a successful strategy under the guise of a human rights shield."

[8] Because the Magistrate dealing with these files did not come back after April 2009, the fact that this applicant needed to be sentenced was overlooked. This must now be remedied.

[9] The application is refused and each of the cases 998, 999 and 1000 of 2006 is to be called in the Nadi Magistrates Court on Monday 31st May 2010 at 9.15am for sentencing.

[10] Production orders to issue.

Paul K. Madigan
Judge

At Lautoka
21 May 2010