State v Speight [2000] FJLawRp 55; [2000] 1 FLR 239 (12 October 2000)

[2000] 1 FLR 239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

STATE

v

GEORGE SPEIGHT & ORS

High Court Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Surman, J
12 October, 2000
HAR 011/00

Administration of justice - Application for review of certain decisions and orders made in court - whether magistrate had jurisdiction to make 'administrative orders' binding the Commissioner of Prisons - Prison Regulations Cap 56

The State applied to review certain decisions of a magistrate concerning visits by relatives, provision of mobile telephones and medical arrangements. The State submitted that once an order remanding a defendant in custody was made, the detention came under the control of the Commissioner of Prisons and prison regulations. The respondent counsel submitted that the prosecution made no objection at the time the requests were made and granted.

Held - (1) if there is a remand on bail, the magistrate may attach certain conditions with the aim of ensuring the defendant's attendance at further hearings and at trial. If there is a remand in custody, the magistrate had no jurisdiction or power or authority to attach any conditions except to secure attendance before the court at a further date.

(2) Where the defendants are remanded in custody, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make any such 'administrative orders' binding the Commissioner of Prisons.

Remand order unaffected. Supplementary Orders concerning visits by relatives, provision of mobile telephones and medical arrangements invalid and are cancelled.

No cases referred to in judgment

Josaia Naigulevu for the appellant
Apisalome Rabo Matebalavu for the respondent

12 October 2000.

JUDGMENT

Surman, J

This matter concerns an Application by the State for the Review of certain decisions and orders made in the Suva Magistrates' Court during September 2000.

The matter first came before me on 27^th September 2000. The Suva Magistrate's file were listed as follows (in numerical sequence): 1984, 2037, 2156, 2217, 2218, 2309 and 2311 (all of year 2000). The files were not immediately available, and the matter was therefore adjourned. Directions were given by me for each of these Magistrate's Files to be produced. The Review resumed today 11^th October 2000.

Orders Under Review

After the production and scrutiny of each of the numbered Magistrate's Files, it was clear that the Orders concerned were to be found only in May Files No. 1984, 2156 and 2218. In each of these proceedings the Chief Magistrate had remanded the various Defendants in custody, and had then made additional 'administrative orders' concerning visits by relatives, provision of mobile telephones and medical arrangements.

Review Request

The State submitted that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make any such 'administrative orders' binding on the Commissioner of Prisons.

The Submission was that once an order remanding a Defendant in custody was made then the Defendant came under the control of the Commissioner of Prisons who acted vide the Prison Regulations (attached to Cap 56).

The Respondents

Represented by Counsel. Counsel was not able to assist with any jurisdictional reference, but relied on the fact that the requests for facilities during remand were requested from the Magistrate, and that the Prosecution (at the time of the Application) raised no objection.

Appeal Ruling

When a Defendant appears before the Court, and the decision is made to remand Defendant(s) to a further date, a decision has to be made by the Magistrate on whether there should be a Remand on Bail or in Custody.

If there is a remand on bail then the Magistrate may attach certain conditions with the aim of ensuring the Defendant's attendance at further hearings and at the trial.

If there is a Remand in Custody then the Magistrate has no jurisdiction or power or authority to attach any conditions save the Order for attendance before the Court at a further date.

Defendants remanded in custody are under the control of the Commissioner of Prisons who acts under the Prison Regulation (published at Cap 86).

The Orders made by the Magistrate in Case File Numbers 1984, 2156 and 2218 for Remands in Custody remain unaffected. The Supplementary Orders are invalid and are to be cancelled.

Application for review granted by cancelling supplementary orders of magistrate.

Marie Chan