State v Hakim [2013] FJHC 15; HAC114.2011 (21 January 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC114 of 2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA HAKIM

Counsel: Mr. S. Nath for State
Accused in person

RULING

[1] The Accused is charged with one count of rape. He is in custody on remand since 16 March 2012.

[2] According to the court record, the Accused is represented by counsel Mr. Iqbal Khan of Iqbal Khan & Associates. But Mr. Khan made no appearance this morning. On the last court appearance, Mr. S. Valenitabua appeared in the case on the instructions of Mr. Khan. It could be that Mr. Khan is not aware of today's proceeding, but after having instructed Mr. Valenitubua, the obligation was on Mr. Khan to follow up on the next court appearance date.

[3] The Accused informs this Court that he has engaged Mr. Khan for trial. His sister has paid $2000.00 in fees to Mr. Khan. The Accused says that he does not know why Mr. Khan has not appeared in Court this morning to represent him.

[4] Counsel for the State informs this Court that he has not received any notice from Mr. Khan regarding his non-appearance in Court. Nor has the Registry received any notice from Mr. Khan regarding his non-appearance.

[5] Non-appearance by a legal practitioner in court when there is clear evidence that counsel is on record has ramifications under the Legal Practitioners Decree.

[6] Counsel who have taken instructions, and have appeared in earlier proceedings in the case, must show good cause for non-appearance in court. Non-appearance does not only affect the Accused but also the administration of the criminal justice system. At this stage, the Court cannot speculate as to why Mr. Khan did not appear in this case this morning.

[7] But the conduct of counsel is a matter of concern for this Court. For these reasons, I direct this matter to the Chief Registrar to request for an explanation from Mr. Khan. If the Chief Registrar is of the opinion that Mr. Khan has breached the Legal Practitioners Decree, then he may take appropriate action against the legal practitioner.

[8] Meanwhile, the Accused may consider instructing another counsel to defend him.

[9] The case is adjourned to 8 February 2013 at 9.30am to check on legal representation.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
21 January 2013

Solicitors:
Accused in person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State