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

Maku v State [2014] FJHC 18; HAA41.2013 (31 January 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. HAA 41 of 2013

BETWEEN:

RITA MAKU
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

BEFORE : HON. MR. JUSTICE PAUL MADIGAN

Counsel : Mr. J. Savou for Appellant
Ms. A. Vavadakua for the State

Date of hearing : 26 November, 2013
Date of Judgment : 31 January, 2014

JUDGMENT

1. In the Magistrates Court held at Nasinu, on the 30th July 2013, the Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one charge of annoying persons contrary to section 213(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree 2009.
   
2. On the 16th September she was sentenced by being discharged without a conviction and ordered to pay $50 costs towards the Prosecution.
   
3. The appellant appeals the costs order on the grounds that she was not heard on the matter, that she has reconciled with her husband, (the complainant) and that the Court Clerk had "an attitude problem" and may have discussed the case with the Magistrate. She also states in her grounds that she had asked the Court not to impose a fine as she was unemployed.
   
4. The brief facts of the case were that on Christmas Day 2012, her husband was outside at the gate to their compound with three friends, seemingly fighting. The Police were called and the Appellant came out and started to harangue the complainant in front of the Police using foul and abusive language.
   
5. The learned Magistrate considered the nature of the offence and the character and past history of the Appellant and the impact of a conviction on her future employment prospects and then decided to dismiss the charge, discharge the appellant and impose the $50 costs without recording a conviction. In a subsequent application to review the costs order, the appellant did not appear, the Magistrate noted that the costs had been paid and the matter was dismissed.
   
6. Although swearing at one's husband may be seen to be part and parcel of marriage, to do so in extremely indecent words on a public street, and in front of the Police does bring the accused well within the terms of the offence. As such, she was extremely fortunate to have been discharged without a conviction despite the costs order. Even though she was unemployed the costs order was not excessive and in the circumstances it was far better than having a conviction made against her.
   
7. The Appellant contradicted herself in saying that she was not given a chance to make submissions to the Magistrate. The Court record clearly shows that the she had advanced appropriate mitigation before the Magistrate, telling him that she was unemployed and asking that conviction not be recorded.
   
8. The claim that the Court Clerk "had an attitude" is not supported by evidence and it is difficult to see in what way this could have impinged on the way her case was handled in the Court below.
   
9. The appellant was most fortunate in the outcome of her case before the learned Magistrate who afforded her every leniency that he possibly could. The appeal is frivolous and vexatious and it is dismissed.
   

P.K. Madigan
Judge

At Suva
31 January, 2014