IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO HAM 109 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

SAULA LALAGAVESI
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Counsels : Appellant – In Person
Mr. L. S. Sovau for the Respondent

Date of Judgment : 19th October 2012

RULING

1	This is an application filed by the Applicant above named to enhance the period of appeal.

Background

2	The Applicant was originally charged before the Magistrate Court of Lautoka for Robbery with Violence. He was convicted after the trial and sentenced to 6 years and 3 months imprisonment, the said sentence was ordered to run concurrent with any other sentence which were running at that time.

3	This Applicant preferred an appeal against the conviction to the High Court (HAM 027 of 2010). The said appeal was 7 days after the stipulated period but the Court enlarged the period of appeal and entertained the appeal. After due consideration that appeal against conviction was dismissed.

4	Being aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court, this Applicant preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal (AAU0035 of 2011). The Applicant submitted an appeal against sentence among other things. It was heard before a Single Judge and leave granted for limited purpose. On the 20th October 2011, while the Court of Appeal granting the leave made order as follows:

"7. There is no error of law in the sentence. I refuse to give leave to appeal on sentence".
[emphasis added]

5	After considering the merits of the appeal, full court of Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 08th March 2011.

6	On the 28th November 2011 this Applicant filed this application to enlarge the time of appeal and submits the following grounds:

1.	 By the time (that) I came to realize that I should appeal against sentence;
2.	The delay was caused by the processing of Appellant appeal to the Court of Appeal;
3.	The Appellant files have been sent to the Court of Appeal to be process within time.

7	The Applicant subsequently submitted two written submissions regarding the sentence and made oral submissions, until the State Counsel brought the entire details to Court this applicant did not reveal to Court that he appealed against the conviction and it was dismissed.

8	The State Counsel objects to grant an enlargement of time to the Applicant and submits that this issue was dealt by a superior court namely the Court of Appeal therefore this Court has no jurisdiction.

9	After carefully considering the materials before the Court I agree with the State Counsel that this Applicant is directly abusing the process of the Criminal Justice System by trying to take several "bites of the cherry". Hence I refuse to enlarge the time of appeal against the sentence.

10	Application to enlarge the time is refused.

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
19th October 2012

Solicitors: Appellant – Appeared in Person
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for the State