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

State v Seniloli (4) [2004] FJHC 535; HAC0028.2003S (28 June 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 028 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 second accused makes an application that I disqualify myself on the ground that I have on four occasions refused his application for adjournments. The fact is, of the four, I have allowed his application for adjournment on one occasion and I gave him more than 2 weeks to find counsel. Unfortunately, he did not avail himself of that opportunity and he did not find counsel until his instructions to counsel this morning.

The test for bias as I have already said, is whether an observer, a reasonably informed observer at the back of the courtroom might reasonably apprehend bias, or consider that there was a real danger of bias. The fact that an application for an adjournment has been refused by the Court is not a ground for a reasonable apprehension of bias, nor does it raise a real danger of bias. If that were the case, then most tribunals would have to disqualify themselves after finding against one of the parties involved in litigation. As such, this application for disqualification is refused. Mr. Singh is excused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
28th June 2004