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

Inquest for Abhimanu [2016] FJMC 139; Inquest 02.2015 (26 January 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT LEVUKA
FIJI ISLANDS
INQUEST JURISDICTION

Inquest No. 2 of 2015

Death Report No. 3/13

Re: Inquest for Abhimanu

Counsel: Mr Sherani (Attorney General’s Office)

Ruling

1). Introduction

The Court held an inquest into the cause of and the circumstances connected with the death of Abhimanu, pursuant to the Inquests Act, Cap 46.

2). The Relevant Provisions of the Law – The Inquest Act

The Inquests Act, Cap 46 outlines the procedures for the holding on inquests and matters related to it.

The powers and duties of a Magistrate are laid out in the Inquests Act, Cap 46. Section 7 of the Act states that “ (1) If, upon receiving all necessary reports, a magistrate shall be satisfied, without holding an inquest, as to the cause of death, he shall report to the Attorney-General the cause of death as ascertained to his satisfaction.
(2) A magistrate may hold an inquest if there is no body available, in any of the circumstances referred to in section 3.
(3) A magistrate shall not hold any inquest under this Act if he has reason to believe that criminal proceedings against any person for having caused the death of the deceased have been, or are about to be, commenced.
(4) In all other cases, the magistrate shall proceed as soon as possible to hold an inquest but may adjourn the inquest sine die if any such criminal-proceedings as aforesaid are commenced.”

Section 9 (1) of the Inquest Act provides that “a magistrate holding an inquest shall have all the powers exercisable by a magistrate in holding a criminal trial under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and shall give at least fourteen days notice of his intention to hold any inquest by the insertion of a notice in the Gazette and a notice, in such languages, as he considers desirable, in such editions of a newspaper published and circulating in Fiji or some part thereof, as he shall think fit.” While Section 9 (2) states that “a magistrate holding an inquest, if he considers it expedient that the body of the deceased person should be examined by a medical officer in order to discover the cause of death, may, whether a post-mortem examination has been performed under the provisions of section 5 or not, issue an order to a medical officer to perform a post-mortem examination of such body, and may, for such purpose, order it to be exhumed.”

The Examination of witnesses and Order of Examination of the witnesses is provided in Section 11 and it provides as follows: “(1) Any person who in the opinion of the magistrate is a properly interested person shall be entitled to examine any witness at an inquest either in person or by a barrister and solicitor: Provided that the magistrate shall disallow any question which in his opinion is not relevant or is vexatious, scandalous or oppressive.

(2) If the death of the deceased may have been caused by an injury received in the course of his employment or by an industrial disease, any labour officer or any officer of the Ministry of Labour senior to a labour officer or any person appointed by a trade union to which the deceased at the time of his death belonged shall be deemed to be a properly interested person for the purpose of this section.

(3) Any person having an insurable interest in relation to the deceased or any representative of an insurance company which has insured the deceased or his property or any property involved in his death shall also be deemed to be a properly interested person.”

Section 12 of the Inquest Act states that “unless the magistrate otherwise determines, a witness at an inquest shall be examined first by him and if the witness is represented at the inquest, lastly by his representative.”

The matters that are to be ascertained at an inquest and according to Section 15 (1) of the Act is that “The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters, and any matters relevant thereto, namely:-

(a) who the deceased was;

(b) the cause and the date and place of death;

(c) the persons, if any, to be charged with murder, manslaughter, infanticide, causing death by dangerous driving or of being accessories before the fact to such offences, should the magistrate find that the deceased came by his death by murder, manslaughter, infanticide or by dangerous driving;

(d) the particulars for the time being required under the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to be registered concerning the death.”

Section 15 (2) of the Inquest Act further states that “for the purpose of avoiding doubt it is hereby declared that a finding under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) shall not operate as a committal for trial nor shall such proceedings be deemed to be a preliminary inquiry.”

As Per Section 16 of the Inquest Act, the Magistrate shall not express any opinion on any matters other than those referred to in Section 15, provided that nothing in this section shall preclude the Magistrate from making a recommendation designed to prevent the recurrence of fatalities similar to that in respect of which the inquest is being held.

The Inquest Act in Section 18 provides that the Evidence and findings are to be recorded and it provides that “(1) Each magistrate holding an inquest shall record the substance of the evidence and shall set out his findings thereon in writing and shall forthwith transmit to the Attorney-General and the Chief Registrar of the High Court, copies of his record of such evidence and findings, certified by him as correct.

(2) The original of such record and findings shall be retained by the clerk to the magistrate's court in which the inquest has been held.”

3). The Witnesses
Captain Bryan Hennings, Bertie Lawrence Brown, Josateki Wilson, and Manoj Kumar were subpoenaed and they gave evidence at the Inquest.

4). Findings

This Court has heard the evidence of the witnesses that were called.

After hearing the evidence of the witnesses at this inquest this Court finds as follows:

(a) Who the deceased was?

The deceased was Abhimanu.

(b) The cause and the date and place of death?

The cause of death could not be ascertained due to extreme degree of putrefaction. Date of death was 29^th June 2013 at the Levuka.

(c) The persons, if any, to be charged with murder, manslaughter, infanticide, causing death by dangerous driving or of being accessories before the fact to such offences, should the magistrate find that the deceased came by his death by murder, manslaughter, infanticide or by dangerous driving?

None.

(d) The particulars for the time being required under the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to be registered concerning the death?

As per the post mortem report.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

26^th January 2016