Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Vanuatu |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Criminal Case No.12 of 2000
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V.
SELWYN PAUL
Coram: Before Oliver A. Saksak - J
Clerk: Ms Cynthia Thomas
Date: 26th July, 2001 9.45 a.m.
Counsels: No appearance for or b Public Prosecutor
No Appearance for or by the Public Solicitor - the Defendant appears in person.
JUDGMENT
This defendant has been continuously remanded in custody from 4th December, the date of his committal.ttal.
He is charged with an offence of rape under section 91 of the Penal Code Act CAP.135. He first applied for bail and was refused on 24th April, 2001. He pleaded not guilty to the charge on 3rd July, 2001. On 10th July, 2001 he made a second application for bail. The Prosecutions objected strenuously and bail was refused. The defendant was further remanded in custody. It was ordered on that day that he be brought up for trail on Thursday 26th July, 2001 at 8 o’clock a.m. Inspector Wilson D. Garae, State Prosecutor had carriage of the case on 10th July, 2001.
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The Court made it perfectly clear on 10
July, 2001 that it was concerned at the length this defendant and others were being maintained in custody without trial. It was hoped that after that clear message the Prosecutor and the solicitor would understand that the court would not accept any further adjournments after 26th July, 2001. Unfortunately it appears that the message was not understood.
Today Mr Toa is not present. He in fact sent a fax yesterday informing the Court why he cannot be present even today. Despite his absence if the Prosecutor was present today, the Court would proceed in Mr Toa’s absence. However the Prosecutions also are not present. There is nothing on File to explain why no-one from that office is unable to be in Court today. In my view there is absolutely no reason why no-one from the Prosecutions Office should not be in Court today. Their absence means only that they are unable to prosecute this case. Under these given circumstances, the Court hereby Orders that –
(1) nbsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;& &nbbsp; p; The charge of rape against the defendant is dismissed.
(2)  p;&nbbsp;&&bsp; &bsp;&bsp; &nbss;&nbbsp;& sp; The defendant is hereby acquitted.
(3n style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> &nnbsp;;&nspp;nbsp;nbsp;&nbp; &nnbsp;;&nspp; sp; The defendant is to be released from custody forthwith.
DATED at Luganville this 26th day of July, 2001.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> BY THE COURT
OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/79.html