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

State v Buksh [2005] FJHC 421; HAC010X.2005S (15 November 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Crim. Case No: HAC0010 of 2005S

STATE

v.

SHAKIR BUKSH
JITOKO METUI
ARE AEMAE
PAULIASI DELAIBATIKI
TEVITA KOTOIRAKIRAKI

Hearing: 15th November 2005
Ruling: 15th November 2005

Counsel: Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State
Ms R. Senikuraciri for 1st Accused
Mr. G. O’Driscoll for 2nd Accused
Ms B. Malimali for 3rd & 4th Accused
Ms U. Fa for 5th Accused

RULING

Counsel for the 3^rd and 4^th Accused renews her application for separate trial. The 3^rd Accused will now be severed from the Information on the ground that he has escaped from custody and cannot be found. Counsel asks for a separate trial because she says that there is a real risk of prejudice to her client, the 4^th Accused, whose defence is that he was not involved in the alleged incident leading to the deceased’s death, at all.

Counsel for the 1^st and 5^th Accused renews his application for separate trial on the same grounds advanced previously.

For the same reasons I have given in my ruling of the 11^th of November 2005, I refuse both applications. Despite he different approaches taken by each accused in this trial, I consider it desirable that one set of assessors and one judge, hear all the relevant evidence in one trial, to decide which version of the facts is reliable. The versions given in their interviews by the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th Accused persons are not necessarily contradictory. Indeed they could be said to support each other. I see no prejudice to them in a joint trial.

In relation to the 4^th Accused, he will say that he was elsewhere at the time of the incident. Again, that version of the facts should be heard by the assessors in the same trial, to avoid inconsistency in verdicts and results.

Although counsel has suggested that the evidence is too complicated for one set of assessors, I consider that with directions based on the separate cases of each accused, there will be no risk of prejudice.

For these reasons the applications are refused. There will be a joint trial for all but the 3^rd Accused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
15^th November 2005