Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Nauru

Braidogi v Director of Public Prosecution [2006] NRSC 5; SC CRA No 10 of 2006 (8 July 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 10/2006

Between:

DANA BRAIDOGI
Appellant

And:

DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTION
Respondent

Mr. Vinci Clodumar for Appellant
Mr. Robert Kaierua for Respondent

DECISION

On the 5^th April I gave reasons for allowing the appeal, I ordered that the Appellant to be examined pursuant to Section 109(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On the 19^th June Dr. Honor Pennington gave a report. Her conclusion:-

"In my opinion Mr. Braidogi does not currently have the capacity to fully understand the nature of the charges he faces.

He does not appear to have the ability to fully understand court proceedings.

He does not appear to have the capacity to instruct a solicitor."

It follows from this opinion, which I accept, that the Appellant does not understand proceedings. Section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that if the prosecution adduce evidence sufficient to justify a conviction the Court shall order the Appellant to be detained during the President's pleasure.

The charges were originally heard in the Magistrates Court. It is now appropriate to remit the case for hearing before the Resident Magistrate in accordance with Section 114(1) (a) of the Act.

Dated the 8^th day of July, 2006

THE HON. ROBIN MILLHOUSE, QC.,
CHIEF JUSTICE