| Fiji Islands - Ram v Reginam - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE FIJI COURT OF APPEAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1976
BETWEEN:
SHIU RAM
s/o Ram Prasad
Appellant
AND:
REGINAM
Respondent
H elPatel for the Appellant
I Khan for the Respondent
Date of Hearing – 22nd July, 1976
Date of Judgment – 30 July, 1976
JUJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
MARSACK JA
In our view the question is authoritatively answered by their Lordships of the Privy Council in King v R (supra). The facts in that case bore a considerable similarity to those in the case under appeal. There the argument for the appellant
King was based on the submission that the evidence sought to be excluded had been obtained illegally and in violation of the terms
of the Jamaican Constitution. In the course of the Privy Council Judgment Lord Hodson cited with approval the dictum of Mellor J
in Jones v Owens (1870) 34 J.P. 759:
“I think it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if we were to hold, because evidence was obtained by illegal
means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence. The justices rightly convicted the appellant.”
Lord Hodson also cited the passage from Lord Goddard’s judgment in the Kuruma case which has already been quoted above; and then went on to hold that the evidence in dispute had been properly admitted.
In our opinion we are bound to follow the decision of the Privy Council in King v R which appears to us strictly relevant to the question requiring determination by this Court. We are satisfied that the ruling of
the learned trial judge that he had a discretion to admit the evidence was correct and that there is no reason for this Court to
differ from the manner in which he exercised that discretion.
For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
T Gould
Vice President
C C Marsack
Judge of Appeal
O’Regan
Judge of Appeal
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJCA/1976/3.html
