Tropa v Reginam [1991] SBHC 25; HC-CRAC 009 of 1991 (4 April 1991)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal Case No. 9 of 1991

ATABAN TROPA

-v-

REGINAM

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Ward C.J.)

Ruling: 4 April 1991

WARD CJ: This is an application to appeal out of time.

The applicant was convicted in his absence in the Lata Magistrates Court on 14th September 1990. He successfully appealed against that conviction and the case was tried by another magistrate in Lata on 22nd November 1990. He was convicted on 24th November and sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

On 28th February he wrote a letter to the Registrar of the High Court stating, under the heading "Appeal against my sentence",

"by now it would have been sounded out to you by the Magistrate Central in Honiara on the reasons for my appeal against the eight months sentence which I consider to be too excessive and a multiple punishment for the same offence."

That appeal was well out of time. However, it is clear he had taken steps earlier. The reference to the Central Magistrates Court is to a letter dated 13th February and received by that court on 11th March 1991. In that he applies to extend the period for appeal and refers to a letter from the Speaker of the National Parliament on this topic dated 15th January. A copy of that letter was sent to the Principal Magistrate Honiara by the Speaker on 22 March and shows that the applicant first wrote to him on 2nd January.

By section 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code any appeal from a Magistrates Court to the High Court must be by petition presented to the Magistrates Court from the decision of which appeal is lodged within fourteen days of the decision.

The Magistrates Court or the High Court may, at any time, for good cause, enlarge that period.

In this case, I shall take it, in the applicant's favour that his first steps in relation to an appeal were taken on 2nd January. He had been sent to prison in Lata and had no direct access to legal advice. Also, in his letter to the Magistrate Central dated 13th February he stated:-

"Originally there was to be an appeal supposed to be submitted by my legal representative, on my behalf. That was never eventuated, as my legal representative then, had to go on leave, and did not have ample time to put together a submission."

At the trial he had been represented and I have no doubt the lawyer advised him about his right to appeal. The record shows that after he was convicted and sentenced, the learned magistrate also explained his right of appeal.

I have considered all these points and also the brief grounds of appeal submitted in his letter of 28th February. I do not find any good cause for extending his time of appeal and the application is refused.

(F.G.R. Ward)
CHIEF JUSTICE