Biosecurity Authority of Fiji v Prasad [2015] FJMC 98; Criminal Case 2014.2014 (9 September 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 2014/2014

BIOSECURITY AUTHORITY OF FIJI

V

RAJESH PRASAD

Mr.Ravusiro P. for the prosecution
The accused absent and unrepresented

JUDGMENT & SENTENCE

The Facts

1] On 24/11/2014 The accused was served a Fix Penalty Notice and Order no:0197 by the Biosecurity Authority Of Fiji.

2] The accused was Imposed $400 fine for infringement in contrary to section 92 of biosecurity Promulgation 2008more specifically on the 22nd of November 2014 will fully fail to comply with a lawful request made by a biosecurity officer named Vasemaca Baleikaba by informing her to make the wrong charges and by not signing the invoice for correct fees that was to be charged to accuses company And also threatened the same officer in performing her duties.

3] The prosecution tendered the affidavit of service confirming service of Fix Penalty Notice and Order no: 0197. As per the notice the matter was to be called on 15/12/2014.

4] On the 15/12/2014 the accused failed to appear before court as request. Therefore the prosecution seeks matter to be fixed for formal proof. The court granted orders accordingly.

5] On 15/12/2014 the bench directed and arranges the prosecution to conduct the formal proof byway of affidavit evidence as per section 131 of Criminal Procedure Decree and the prosecution conduct their formal proof by way of affidavit.

6] The prosecution tendered an affidavit with annexure's marked As PW-1 and Other Relevant Documents.
Document "pw-1" – Fix Penalty Notice and Order no: 0197
Other Documents- incident report form no: 15/14 (b) Suv. This had the signature of the accused.

7] It was evident that the accused was served properly and did not come to court and had given written guilty plea on it.

8] The prosecution based on the affidavit seeks to convict the accused; further seeks costs of $2000.00 against the accused. And prosecution seeks a fine not exceeding $20,000 Or imprisonment or both such fine and imprisonment. And such further or other relief as this Court may deem just and expedient.

9] Then, the prosecution concluded their case by way of formal proof.

The Law

8] The main source of law with regard to this matter is statutory law more specifically biosecurity Promulgation 2008 and some case authorities by the court. As per section 92;

"Obstruction, false information etc.

Sec 92. A person who –

(a) wilfully fails to comply with a lawful request made or direction given by a biosecurity officer under this Promulgation;

(b) knowingly obstructs a biosecurity officer in the performance of his or her functions under this Promulgation;

(c) assaults, or threatens to assault a biosecurity officer performing functions under this Promulgation;

(d) bribes a biosecurity officer in relation to the performance of functions under this Promulgation;

(e) makes a false or incomplete statement, whether orally or in writing, in relation to any matter under this Promulgation, intending to mislead a biosecurity officer in the performance of functions under this Promulgation,

(f) for purposes of this Promulgation knowingly or recklessly -

(i) makes a false or misleading biosecurity declaration; or

(ii) issues any false or misleading certificate;

(g) knowingly or recklessly gives false or misleading information to a biosecurity officer while the officer is performing functions under this Promulgation,

Commits an offence."

9] The section 94 has prescribed penalties;

"Section Maximum Penalties

"Sec: 94.-(l) An individual who commits an offence under a section of this Promulgation listed in column 2 of Schedule 5 is liable on summary conviction to the maximum penalties respectively listed in columns 4 and 5 of Schedule 5.

(2) The penalties listed in Schedule 5 are maxima and a court may impose on an individual any penalty for an offence up to the amount of fine or period of imprisonment (or both) listed in respect of the offence.

(3) A body corporate that commits an offence is liable to a maximum fine of 5 times the maximum fine for the same offence if committed by an individual, as prescribed in Schedule 5."

10] In Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462 held that 'no matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused, is part of the common law". Therefore the burden of proof of the accused person's guilt beyond reasonable doubts lies with the prosecution. If the evidence creates any doubt, should be given to the accused.

Analysis

11] This is a straight forward case and this court has no hesitation to accept the evidence tendered. This bench is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt. This court convicts the accused as charged.

Sentence

12] Considering the amount this court think non-custodial sentence would appropriate. Therefore this court imposed $ 600 fine against the accused. And prosecution is entitling for the litigation cost of $2000.00.

13] 28 days to appeal from today.

9th Sep 2015, at Suva, Fiji Islands

Neil Rupasinghe
Resident Magistrate