Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Public Prosecutor v Tagahi [2000] VUSC 32; Criminal Case No 057 of 1999 (6 July 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No.57999

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-V-

BASIL TAGAHI and

class="MsoNormal" align="cgn="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> ARTHER BAN

Coram: Before Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Ms Cynthia Thomas - Clerk

Inspector n Dudley Garae for the Public Prosecutor

Mr Hillary Toa for the Defendants

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> History

These Defendants first appeared before this Court on 19^th October 1999 wheey both pleaded not-gnot-guilty to one only count of rape contrary to section 91 of the Penal Code Act. The trial was adjourned to 15^th May 2000. On May, 2000 the Prosecutions informed the Court that due to lack of finances and difficulty in service of summonses, no prosecution witnesses where available in Court. Prosecutions then applied to have the trial adjourned to enable them to make efforts to bring witnesses over to Luganville. The trial date fixed by the Court was 6^th July, 2000.

Further Application For Adjournment

Today being 6^th ly, 2000 the Prosecutions are again applying to have the trial adjourned to October 2ber 2000. The same reasons advanced in May this year were relied on. They indicate today that they would not oppose any application for bail on behalf of the Defendants. Mr Toa opposed the application for adjournment on the grounds that there had been more than sufficient time given to the Prosecutions to have their witnesses brought to Court and he submitted that no efforts have been made since May to do that.

Ruling

The application for adjour is refused and therefore dismissed. The history of the case shows that some 9 9 months after the Defendants pleaded not-guilty to charges of rape on 19^th October 1999, very little or no efforts at all were made to bring witnesses for trial on 15^th May, 2000. From 15^th May 2000 to 6^th July 2000 is a further 2 months. The Defendants have been in custody for almost 10 months without trial. To adjourn further to October 2000 with the Defendants in custody would make a total of 13 months in custody pending trial.

Article 5(2) of the Coution states –

"Protection of the law shall include the following -

(a) &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp; sp; everyone charged with an offence shall have a fair hearing, with areble tu>, bindept andrtialt and affordfforded a ed a lawyelawyer if r if it isit is a se a seriousrious offe offences.nces." (emphasis, mine)

In my view, for a defendant to wait 10 months in custody to await trial is being denied his right to be tried within a reasonable time. For this reason the charges against these two defendants must be dismissed. The Court appreciates the efforts made by the Police and the Prosecutions but they could have done more. The witnesses are from a remote island of Ureparapara. The remoteness of the place where an offence is committed should be all the more reason for a speedy trial and not a reason given for delays as here.

p class="MsoNormal" aal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Order

For these reasons, these two defendants are dismissed of the charges against Further it is ordered that they be released from custody forthwith.

DATED at Luganville, this 6^th day of July, 2000.

BY THE COURT

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> OLIVER A. SAKSAK

class="MsoNormal" align="cgn="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Judge