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

State v Delaibatiki [2005] FJHC 170; HAC0024D.2005S (6 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0024-026 of 2005S

STATE

v.

PAULIASI DELAIBATIKI

Hearing: 24th June 2005
Ruling: 6th July 2005

Counsel: Ms V. Lidise for State
Accused in Person

RULING

The Accused person has been committed for trial to the High Court, on three separate matters. In HAC0025/2005, he was charged on one count of robbery with violence (of goods to the total value of $133.00) and one count of giving a false name and address to a police officer. The charges relate to an incident in November 2004, and January 2005. In HAC 026 of 2005 he was charged on one count of burglary (with intent to commit a felony) and larceny in a dwelling house, on the 9th of May 2003. The total value of goods alleged to be stolen is $2385.00.

In a third case the Accused is charged with murder. The State now asks whether the other cases should be remitted for trial to the Magistrates’ Court. The Accused asks that all cases should be dealt with in the High Court so that he has a good chance of receiving concurrent sentences.

The offences of burglary and larceny are not electable. Thus the Accused’s “election” to be tried in the High Court on the 19th of April 2005, was invalid. The prosecution did not object, and the learned Magistrate then said: “Satisfied proper cause for transfer to be dealt together [with] other matters.”

However, even if the learned Magistrate purported to have the matter transferred by an exercise of his own discretion under section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this was not a valid reason for such transfer. There is no factual connection between HAC 24 and HAC 25. Nor are either of the cases connected to the murder charge. There is no valid reason to jointly try the Accused on these charges, and there is a good chance that the cases would be handled by different judges. The High Court is not the suitable forum for burglary and larceny. Nor is it a suitable forum for the offence of giving a false name to a police officer. I have no hesitation in ordering the remittance of these charges to the Magistrates’ Court. Whether or not the Accused receives concurrent or consecutive sentences (if he is found guilty) is a matter for the sentencing court to consider.

In respect of HAC0025 of 2005, the Accused elected Magistrates’ Court trial on the 17th of February 2005. I see no reason for the subsequent transfer. I am told that there is no connection to the murder charge. Certainly the State says there is no such connection. The robbery with violence charge is filed in the High Court in error. I order that the file be remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for trial.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
6th July 2005