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

State v Seniloli (1) [2004] FJHC 31; HAC0028.2003 (28 June 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0028 OF 2003S

STATE

v.

RATU JOPE SENILOLI
RATU RAKUITA VAKALALABURE
VILIAME VOLAVOLA
ISIRELI LEWENIQILA
PECELI RINAKAMA
VILIAME SAVU

Hearing: 28th June 2004
Ruling: 28th June 2004

Counsel: Mr. M. Tedeschi, Mr. G. Allan, Ms A. Prasad for State;
Mr. M. Raza for 1st Accused;
2nd Accused in Person;
Mr. S. Naqase for 3rd & 6th Accused;
Mr. D. Sharma for 4th Accused;
Mr. A. Seru for 5th Accused.

RULING

The basis of this application for adjournment was the basis of the submissions for the similar application for adjournment made before me on 8th June 2004. On that occasion, Mr. Valenitabua appeared for the second accused and asked for an adjournment of the trial to the beginning of September to accommodate his dates. On that occasion I heard from all counsel in this case and I also considered my own Court diary, and I concluded that a short adjournment of 18 days would be sufficient for the second accused to find counsel and to instruct counsel. He now renews his application for adjournment on the basis that he still wants Mr. Valenitabua to appear for him as his counsel.

In my ruling of 10 June 2004 I made it very clear to the second accused, Ratu Rakuita that if the dates that I had set for the continuation or the beginning of this trial was not suitable for Mr. Valenitabua, then Mr. Valenitabua would need to withdraw as counsel and the second accused would need to find alternative counsel to prepare for him. He has had ample time to instruct alternative counsel. In the course of that ruling I also set out the reasons why in his own interests the second accused should make every effort to find himself representation. He has not availed himself of that opportunity.

I consider that to adjourn the case now, when there are no dates available for me to hear this matter this year hereafter, and when all other counsel are ready for hearing this morning, would not be in the interests of justice.

This application for adjournment is refused. The trial will now proceed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
28th June 2004