Cama v State [2012] FJSC 4; CAV0003.09 (1 May 2012)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
AT SUVA

Criminal Appeal No: CAV 0003 of 2009

BETWEEN:

ENELE CAMA
Petitioner

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram: Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Gates, President of the Supreme Court
Hon. Mr. Justice Sathyaa Hettige, Justice of the Supreme Court
Hon. Mr. Justice Daniel Goundar, Justice of the Supreme Court

Counsel: Petitioner in person
Mr. M. Korovou for State

Hearing: 3rd August 2011
Judgment: 1st May 2012

JUDGMENT

[1] Mr Cama (the applicant) seeks an order extending the time for filing a petition of appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 28 February 2003. In that judgment, the Court of Appeal refused to extend the time to file a notice of appeal against conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant for murder in the High Court, Suva on 16 April 1998.

[2] The present application was not made until 30 March 2009. It is thus some six years out of time. The applicant's explanation for the delay is that he is unrepresented and ignorant of the law. Delay of this length requires the applicant to show a compelling case that the criteria for leave are met, albeit, the touchstone is the interests of justice in the particular case (The State v Ramesh Patel Criminal Appeal No.AAU0002 of 2002S (15 November 2002)).

[3] At trial, the applicant was represented by counsel. The facts were not largely disputed. The applicant and the deceased had consumed homebrew liquor for a considerable period of time when an altercation occurred between them. The applicant stabbed the deceased with a kitchen knife, once. The deceased died instantly due to loss of blood, internal and external, from the wound. Post mortem examination revealed that the wound had penetrated the dura and had gone into the left temporal lobe of the brain. The pathologist gave evidence that it would have required considerable force to cut through the skull.

[4] The applicant gave evidence consistent with his caution statements. He maintained that when he stabbed the deceased, he did not know what he did.

[5] It was not in dispute that the deceased died of a stab wound caused by the applicant. The only issue was whether the applicant could form an intention to cause grievous harm or to kill due to his state of intoxication. The evidence of intoxication was therefore relevant to the state of mind of the applicant when he struck the fatal blow.

[6] The learned trial judge directed the assessors on intoxication, but the majority rejected the proposition that the applicant was so drunk as to be incapable of forming the specific intention required for murder. The learned trial judge convicted the applicant for murder by accepting the majority opinions.

[7] Since the applicant was unrepresented before the Court of Appeal and this Court, we gave him an opportunity to make oral submissions. The applicant focused his submissions on the evidence of intoxication as it related to his state of mind at the time of the offence. In our judgment, the submissions do not raise any question of general or public importance or create a concern that substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The applicant seeks to re-litigate the facts as they relate to his state of mind at the time he struck the fatal blow on the deceased. In this regard, we reach the same conclusion that was reached by the Court of Appeal that the applicant has not shown any tenable grounds for an extension of time to appeal.

[8] The application for an extension of time to file a petition of appeal is refused.

__________________________________________
Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Gates
President of the Supreme Court

__________________________________________
Hon. Mr. Justice Sathyaa Hettige
Justice of Appeal of the Supreme Court

__________________________________________
Hon. Mr. Justice Daniel Goundar
Justice of Appeal of the Supreme Court

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