THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Criminal Case No. 59 of 1999
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
PUBLIC CUTOR
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
-VS-
ANTYSUS SIO
<
Coram: Before Mr Justice Oliver
A. Saksak
Ms Cynthia Thomas - Clerk
Inspector Wilson Duddley Garae
for the Prosecutor
Mr Hillary Toa for the
Defendant
ORAL JUDGEMENT
This case is called for trial
this morning. Inspector Garae applied for an adjournment tote later
this month. nth. The
reasons for so applying were that the File was in Vila with
the Adviser and that the witness summonses were not served. He
expressed
apologies for such failure by the prosecutions. The Inspector submitted that
the case is a relatively new case
and that because of its serious nature,
the case should be adjourned to another date. He further submitted that
because
there were not a hundred cases on the list, that time would not be
wasted if the matter was adjourned.
Mr Toa opposed the application
for adjournment for reasons that the prosecutions had been given extensive
time to prepare
for the trial and they have not done so. Further that the
defendant has been in custody for some 9 months since August 1999
without a
proper trial. He submitted further that where the Defendant was present on
the day of trial and the prosecutions
were not ready to proceed with trial,
it was a proper case for dismissal.
Inidering whether or not
to adjourn the case or to dismiss it I refer to the letter wrir written by the
Assistant Registrar
on 2nd March, 2000. It was addressed to the
Legal Officer in the Prosecutions Office in Luganville, the Chief Registrar,
the
Offices of the Public Solicitor and Public Prosecutor and to the
Officer-In-Charge of Prisons in Luganville. The letter is
clear and calls on
every addressees but more particularly on the Public Solicitor to make all
appropriate arrangements
to be present at the dates of trial allocated for
each case. The Court is delighted to see that the Public Solicitor has
complied with that call.
It is unacceptable to this
Court for the Prosecutions to subhat the matter should be adbe adjourned
because the File is
in Vila. This is a Santo case and that is no reason at
all why the File should be in Vila. It is not acceptable either to tell
the
Court that despite the letter of 2nd March, 2000 summonses have
not been served. The failure of the Prosecutions have been clearly admitted.
The witnesses
of this case live at Narango, South Santo, not too far from
Luganville. It is an accessible village.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
I accept that thences for
which the Defendant is charged are serious but I am also aware of the law
law
that states that
an accused person must remain innocent until and unless
proven guilty by the prosecutions. We have here a Defendant who has
been in
custody since August 1999. Concerns have been expressed by the Court in the
past at the delays in the trials
of these cases. One should have hoped that
after the letter of 2 March 2000 there would not be any further delays
except
for very good and exceptional circumstances, all cases would be tried
as scheduled. The reasons given by the Prosecutions today
are not very good
and exceptional reasons to allow a further adjournment.
In my view this case should be
dismiand I so order. I further order that the defendant be releareleased
from custody forthwith.
DATELuganville, this 8th
day of May, 2000.
BYCOURT
OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge
