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

State v Seniloli (2) [2004] FJHC 42; HAC0028.2003 (26 July 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: 26th July 2004
Ruling: 26th July 2004

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

RULING

The prosecution now wish to tender MFI(9) which is the Public Emergency Regulations under the Public Safety Act. It purports to have been printed by the Government Printer in 2000 and the name of the Government Printer is printed at the bottom, and there appears to be a signature K.K.T. Mara which appears to be that of the President of the Republic of the Fiji Islands. The defence objects to the tendering of this exhibit at this stage.

Firstly, because Mr. Singh submits that this is the document which had not been previously disclosed to the defence. Secondly, because this is not a document which Mr. Joseph Browne himself prepared. It was not a draft of his own making. Thirdly, because the contents of the Public Emergency Regulations was not a matter of cross-examination.

The reason for the identification of the Public Emergency Regulations in the course of Mr. Joseph Browne’s evidence was that, his evidence that he went to the Government Printer with the copy of these regulations and that he asked the Government Printer to gazette the regulations on the evening of the 19th of May. The significance appears to be, that at that particular point in time, steps were being taken by the then President to assume some kind of control over the country.

Since that is a matter which is not significantly in dispute, and since there has been extensive cross-examination on the form of the Public Emergency Regulations as compared with other Regulations and Decrees which have been exhibited by the defence, it will be of assistance to the assessors to be able to see the very Regulations, basis of which was the subject of extensive cross-examination.

As to the weights that can be put on the contents of the Regulations that will be the subject of my direction to the assessors in due course. For the time being I will allow the prosecution to mark this exhibit as Exhibit 9. That’s my ruling.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
26th July 2004