IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0002 OF 1996

THE STATE

V

MAIKA SOQONAIVI

Counsel: Ms R. Olutimayin for the State
Mr. T. Fa for accused

Hearing on Voire Dire: 5th and 6th August 1997
Decision: 6th August 1997

ORAL DECISION OF PAIN J.
ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COPIES OF STATEMENTS

As part of the prosecution case, the prosecutor seeks to produce copies of the caution and charge statements made by the Accused. Counsel for the accused objected.
Evidence has been heard.

The evidence given by the witnesses called by the prosecution has not been challenged by the defence. None of those witnesses have been cross-examined.

The evidence shows that both the caution and charge statements were recorded in writing in duplicate with an original and carbon copy being prepared at the same time. Both original and carbon copy being prepared at the same time. Both original statements were tendered at the Preliminary Inquiry in the Magistrates Court by the officer in charge of this case.

The record sent to the High Court from the Magistrates Court did not include those original statements. A search has been made in the High Court and the original statements cannot be located. The duplicate file and copy of the depositions retained in the Magistrates Court cannot be located. A search for them and the original charge and caution statements has been unsuccessful.

On the basis of this evidence the carbon copies are clearly admissible.

There is clear proof that the original documents were prepared and signed. Indeed the signatures carry through to the carbon copies that the prosecution is seeking to produce.

Those original documents cannot now be found despite due search having been made for them.

The carbon copies are obviously copies of the original document.

On the basis of the authorities submitted by counsel for the prosecution and the text book writing on this subject such as contained in Cross on Evidence and Archbolds Criminal Law, these copies are clearly admissible. Grounds have been made out for their production as secondary evidence.

Indeed it could well be that on the authority of the decision in Durston v Mercuri 1969 Victorian Reports 507 tendered by counsel for prosecution these carbon copies may be admitted as primary evidence. There is no suggestion that they are anything other than true carbon copies identical with the originals in every way and that they bear the signature impression of the accused.

There is no merit whatever in the objection raised by the defence. The admissibility of the carbon copies has not been challenged by cross-examination of the witnesses or Legal argument. The defence has occasioned a time wasting exercise that does no credit to the administration of justice in this criminal Court.

The carbon copies are admissible.

Justice D. B. Pain

HAC0002D.96S