Eteuati v Ministry of Police Prisons and Fire Service (1) [2004] WSSC 36 (9 July 2004)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

SIAOSI ETEUATI
(also known as) SIAOSI MALUSEU
Applicant

AND

MINISTRY OF POLICE, PRISONS AND FIRE SERVICE
Respondent

Hearing: 9^th July 2004
Date of Judgment: 9^th July 2004

Counsel: Mr Ming Leung-Wai for Applicant
Ms J Stowers for Respondent

JUDGMENT OF HIS HONOUR JUSTICE D J CARRUTHERS

[1] This is an application for costs pursuant to s.167 of Criminal Procedure Act 1972. It follows my dismissal of the application by the Respondent for a retrial and my granting the application for dismissal of the Informations laid against the Application.

[2] I intend to award costs. I need not repeat my Judgment given this morning. There was in my view no merit in the application for retrial for reasons set out in my Judgment.

[3] This application however is I think, a limited one. It arises out of these particular proceedings and not out of the dismissal of the earlier Information's which came before the District Court in December 2003.

[4] The costs associated- with that matter are, I see, claimed as special damages amounting to some $1800 in the Civil proceedings bought now on behalf of the Defendant by Mr Leung-Wai.

[5] The costs I am considering now arise from the matters I have determined today. Mr Leung-Wai tells me he estimates the costs at $5,000 and seeks an award in this amount.

[6] Ms Stowers stresses the relevant aspects to be considered and has helpfully referred me to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967(NZ) and the principles and guidelines therein set out together with the Samoan Court of Appeal decision in Police v Maiava Safue Seau Tito & Anors (CA 18/8/00).

[7] Ms Stowers argues that any costs must be limited in any event pursuant to s.167(5) to the amount provided by scale.

[8] There are difficulties about that.

[9] As Mr Leung-Wai says the present hearing amounted to preliminary mattes and was not a substantive hearing. In those circumstances it would seem to me that the provisions of Rule (2) of the Supreme Court (Fees and Courts Rules 1971) apply.

[10] I have considered Mr Leung-Wai's submissions as to quantum and the appearances and work required generally in this matter.

[11] I consider an amount of $5,000.00 to be excessive having regard to the work necessary. I fix a reasonable contribution to costs at $2,000.00 which is consistent with the costs claimed for the original matters, and order this to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

[12] There will be orders accordingly.

JUSTICE D J CARRUTHERS