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

State v Prasad [2013] FJMC 276; Criminal Case 509.2011 (22 July 2013)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF FIJI
AT NAVUA

Criminal case No: - 509/2011

THE STATE

V

EDWARD RONALD PRASAD

For Prosecution : - Sgt. Lenaitasi
For Accused : -Mr. O’Driscol

RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER

1. The accused is charged with one count of Found in Possession of Illicit Drugs contrary to section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act No.9 of 2004.

2. Learned defence counsel made this application under section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. In his submission the defence stated that the prosecution has failed to prove an essential element in the offence.

3. Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree states :-

“if at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him or her to make a defence, the court shall dismiss the case and shall acquit the accused”.

4. In State v Aiyaz [2009] FJHC 186; HAC033.2008 (31 August 2009) His Lordship Justice Goundar said :-

“ The test for no case to answer in the Magistrates’ Court under section 210 is adopted from the Practice Direction, issued by the Queen’s Bench Division in England and reported in [1962] 1 All E.R 448 (Moiden v R (1976) 27 FLR 206). There are two limbs to the test under section 210:

[i] Whether there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the charged offence;

[ii] Whether the prosecution evidence has been so discredited or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could convict.

An accused can rely on either limb of the test under section 210 to make an Application for no case to answer in the Magistrates' Court." [Emphasis added]

5. The defence said in the application that the prosecution failed to identify the accused in the Court. Therefore there is no evidence to prove an essential element in the offence.

6 But in his caution statement the accused has admitted that the drugs were found in his van and he was the driver of that. The defence did not object to this statement marked as exhibit. This has fulfilled the disputed element in the offence.

7. Accordingly, I dismiss the submission made by the learned counsels for the Accused person under the section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Decree.

22/07/2013

H. S. P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Navua