State v Qoli [1997] FJLawRp 25; [1997] 43 FLR 195 (11 August 1997)

[1997] 43 FLR 195

<60;
HIGH COURT OF FIJI ISLANDS

TATE
&>&#1b>

NEOVAKATURAATURAGA QOLI

Criminal Jurisdicbr>&#1r>&#16>

ime: dure- Dre- DPP’s power to file further info information- assault occasioning actual bual bodily harm- jurisdiction of the High Courtry - Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 21), Section 4- Penal Code (Cap 17) Section 245.

The DPP filed a d inforinformation alleging a lesser offence than that with which the accused had originally been charged. The High Court HELD: hat there was no objection to a fresh information being filed although the prosecution woul would have to elect with which information it wished to proceed and (ii) that the High Court had unfettered jurisdiction to try any offence whether or not that offence was within the jurisdiction of a Magistrates’ Court.

Cases cited:

v. Croydon JJ ex paex parte Dean [1993] 3 All ER 129

R v. Munro (1993) Cr. App. R. 183

Preliminary ruln the Hihe High Court.#160;i>J. Auld & Ms. R. Shafiq for the the StateState
J. Maharaj for the Accused

Pain J:
;
The Appellant was committed for trial on a charge of m of manslaughter. An information for that offence was laid by the Directorublic Prosecutions.

Lask the Director of Puof Public Prosecutions filed a fura further information. This is headed up “Amended Information by the Director of Public Prosecutions”. It charges the Accused with the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to S.245 of the Penal Code.

Prior to the Accused being arraigned, counsel for the Accused has objected to the trial proceeding on this new charge. As we are waiting to commence the trial an immediate decision is required. Counsel were not able to submit any direct authority on the issue raised. In the limited research I have had time to do I have ascertained what I believe is the correct legal position. However, I have not been able to prepare a fully reasoned judgment.

This filing of a s info information by the Director of Public Prosecutions is not unique. It is frequently done, usually as in this case, alleging a lesser offence than the origiharge. There is no express statutory authorisation for this this procedure but it is a common practice that has been regularly permitted in this Court. Furthermore, in my view it is a procedure that is authorised by the Common Law.

Counsel for thesed subm submitted that the procedure is equivalent to the laying of a new information. If that is so, I consider there is nothiong with that. There is no statutory prohibition against it. At Common Law there is no rule rule or practice which prohibits two indictments being in existence against the one Accused at the one time (in this respect see particularly R v Munro (1993) 97 Cr. App. R. 183). Of course, the prosecution could not proceed on both indictments and both indictments could not be tried together. The prosecution would need to elect to proceed on one only. The Court has power to stay the other indictment (See R v Munro (supra) and generally such cases as the R v Croydon Justices ex parte Dean [1993] 3 All ER 129).

It lso been submitted bted by counsel for the Accused that the High Court has no jurisdiction to try this charge of assault occasioactual bodily harm. It is said that it must be heard in the Magistrates’ Court. That That is not so. The High Court has unlimited jurisdiction to try any offence under the Penal Code. This is specifically stated in S.4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further reflected in the First schedule to that Code which designates the offences triable by Magistrates “in addition to the High Court”. However, that is now subject to the provisions of the Electable Offences Decree 1988 which restricts a defendants entitlement to elect to be tried in the High Court to those offences prescribed in the schedule. However, the jurisdiction of the High Court remains unfettered.

According offence underunder S.245 of the Penal Code would ordinarily be tried in the Magistrates’ Court and the defendant would haveight to elect trial in the the High Court. However, that does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to try for that offence if it considers it appropriate to do so.

It may be und for objecobjection that inadequate notice of the new charge has not been given. If this has caused prejudice to the accused an adjournment would be the usual remedy.

However, efenclier oppo opposed an a an adjournment of the original charge and that application by the prosecution was refused. This is a lessarge on exactly the same facts. The interests of justice require that it should be heard wird without delay. If required, I will need to hear further from the defence on this point.

Ming is that the prosecrosecution is entitled to proceed on the information dated 6th August 1997 alleging the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under S.245 of the Penal Code.