Reddy v Police [1953] FijiLawRp 10; [1946-1955] 4 FLR 83 (16 July 1953)

[1946-1955] 4 FLR 83

SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

Appellate Jurisdiction

GOPAL REDDY

v

THE POLICE

Hyne, C.J.

July 16th, 1953

Perjury-whether record properly produced-Magistrate at trial giving evidence as to words spoken although originally spoken in Hindustani-swearing of interpreter.

The acused was convicted of the offence of perjury at the Magistrate's Court, Lautoka, on the 18th March, 1953. The offence was alleged to have been committed during a former trial of the accused and others in November, 1952. At the trial for perjury the record was not produced but the charge sheet was. Evidence as to the relevant words being spoken was given by Mr. J. L. MacDuff who was the presiding Magistrate at the original trial in November, the words being spoken to him in Hindustani and interpreted to him by the Court Interpreter who was not sworn as such at the original trial but had taken the interpreter's oath some years previously. On being convicted the accused appealed.

HELD –

(1) A charge sheet is not sufficient evidence to prove judicial proceedings were held.

(2) The evidence of the presiding Magistrate as to the words spoken in Hindustani and interpreted to him was inadmissible as being hear-say evidence.

(3) It is not necessary for a person who has taken the interpreter's oath to be sworn as such at each individual trial.

Cases referred to:-

Police v Aryewumi (1948) West African Court of Appeal Cases.

R. v Kelly and Maloney (1848) 3 CCR 75.

P. Rice for the appellant.

W. G. Bryce, Solicitor-General, for the respondent.

HYNE, C.J.-The Solicitor-General stated that there were two errors on the record which were very grave, and against which he could not argue. With this statement I entirely agree.

In the first place, as the learned Solicitor-General pointed out, the record of the proceedings in respect of which perjury was alleged was not produced at the trial. The charge sheet was produced, but this in itself is not sufficient evidence that judicial proceedings were held.

In order to prove that judicial proceedings did, in fact, take place, it is necessary to produce either the record of the proceedings itself, or to produce a copy thereof and prove it to be an examined copy, or to produce a copy purporting to be signed and certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody the original record is entrusted.