Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

State v Seniloli (5) [2004] FJHC 35; HAC0028Y.2003S (28 June 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0028 OF 2003S

STATE

v.

RATU JOPE SENILOLI
RAKUITA VAKALALABURE
VILIAME VOLAVOLA
ISIRELI LEWENIQILA
PECELI RINAKAMA
VILIAME SAVU

Hearing: 28th June 2004
Ruling: 28th June 2004

Counsel: Mr. M. Tedeschi, Mr. G. Allan, Ms A. Prasad for State;
Mr. M. Raza for 1st Accused;
Mr. A.K. Singh for 2nd Accused;
Mr. S. Naqase for 3rd & 6th Accused;
Mr. D. Sharma for 4th Accused;
Mr. A. Seru for 5th Accused

RULING

The 2nd Accused now makes his fourth application for adjournment of the trial. On this occasion, he says he has this morning briefed Mr. A.K. Singh to appear for him at this trial. Mr. Singh has confirmed his availability, but only from next Monday.

It is a matter of some surprise that the 2nd Accused has waited until the morning of the trial to brief counsel, when he has been unrepresented from the 26th of May 2004, when Mr. Vuataki was disqualified from appearing as counsel. He has had 18 days from my ruling of the 10th of June, and it is not clear whom he has approached to defend him until this morning. This is despite my warning to him on the 10th of June that if he took no steps to instruct counsel he would have to be prepared to defend himself.

It appears that his lack of representation today is a problem of his own making. It appears that Mr. Singh’s office was not approached by the 2nd Accused, and he waited until the morning of the trial to instruct Mr. Singh.

I was, and am prepared to start with the evidence tomorrow, to allow Mr. Singh to familiarise himself with the case, but I can grant an adjournment for no longer. Mr. Singh says he is not available tomorrow, and the trial cannot be held up for any longer simply because one of the accused, who is himself a lawyer and who must have an appreciation of the advantages and importance of legal representation, has failed to take any steps to obtain such representation.

Any further delay in the trial will jeopardise the rights of other accused persons in other trials, many of whom await trial in custody.

Indeed it is in the interests of all the accused in this trial, that we proceed to trial without any further delay. It has already been delayed by two weeks to allow the 2nd accused to brief counsel.

The application for adjournment is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
28th June 2004