{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f12\fnil\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}Batang{\*\falt Arial Unicode MS};}{\f180\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f181\fnil\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@Batang;}{\f182\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f183\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f185\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f186\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f187\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f188\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f189\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f190\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0; \red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid15477491 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f180\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid15477491 Body Text;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid15477491 header;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid15477491 page number;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \styrsid8795817 footer;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid211976\rsid811014 \rsid857237\rsid862776\rsid933470\rsid1009808\rsid1598413\rsid1972231\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2364663\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid2847498\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392 \rsid4594149\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid5715529\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6373782\rsid6504631\rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6830031\rsid6953338\rsid7220001\rsid7366506 \rsid7483118\rsid7958375\rsid8016262\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8795817\rsid8813140\rsid8866877\rsid9184739\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9709318\rsid9776131\rsid10355983\rsid10712439\rsid10749241 \rsid11014019\rsid11292607\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11417189\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14496123\rsid14510136 \rsid14695321\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15090511\rsid15141959\rsid15149365\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15477491\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15665632\rsid15864576\rsid15884885\rsid15945946\rsid16282821\rsid16592213\rsid16597937 \rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author raikatalau_l}{\operator ruddley_e}{\creatim\yr2011\mo6\dy16\hr13\min25}{\revtim\yr2011\mo6\dy17\hr9\min49} {\version3}{\edmins11}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords3841}{\nofchars21895}{\*\company Pacific Legal Information Institue}{\nofcharsws25685}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot15477491\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid857237 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid857237 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid857237 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid857237 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart State_v_Ilikimi_Naitini_George_Speight}STATE v ILIKIMI NAITINI a.k.a. GEORGE SPEIGHT & 10 ORS }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (No. 2)}{ \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend State_v_Ilikimi_Naitini_George_Speight} \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\dbch\af12\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\dbch\af12\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 4 January, 2001}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 HAA 93/00S \par }\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 \f180\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }{\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Stay of preliminary hearing \endash State}{\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s a pplication to seek stay of Magistrate proceeding with scheduled preliminary hearing and to disqualify himself \endash whether Court can order stay and disqualification on allegations from the bar table of presiding magistrate}{ \i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s purported bias by conduct \endash 1997 Constitution s120(1), (6);}{\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 }{ \i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 1990 Constitution s 114}{\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 - }{\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Penal Code s50; Criminal Procedure Code ss 69, 70, 323, 308}{\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 ; }{\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Immunity Decree 2000 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par The State sought a stay of preliminary hearing proceedings and disqualification and name suppression orders that 1) t he Chief Magistrate be barred from further dealing with the case of Ilikimi Naitini a.k.a George Speight and Others, under Criminal Case No. 2529/2000, pending further order by the High Court; 2)\~\~ the decision of the Chief Magistrate to hold a preliminary hearing on the day}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 after this appeal was heard in a case of treason charges be vacated until the appeal was filed and heard by the High Court, or until an appeal already filed by the }{\caps\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 a}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 ccused in the case of the validity of the Immunity Decree 2000, was hea rd by the Court of Appeal; 3) the decision of the Chief Magistrate ordering the prosecution to disclose the names and addresses of 114 prosecution witnesses, be set aside pending further order by the High Court. The State}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s Notice of Motion was intituled }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 In the Matter of an Appeal by the State pursuant to section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 and State counsel deposed to an intention to exercise its right of appeal under section 308 CPC and was preparing appeal papers. It sought to disqualify the chi ef magistrate because of his unusual procedure of allowing the }{\caps\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 a}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 ccused an adjournment before cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, his comments that the prosecution was delaying the course of justice, and habitually shaking hands with the }{\caps\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 a}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 ccused after session on Nukulau Island . The appellate Judge found that this was not a stay pending appeal, and could not consider the application. The papers were misleading where no notice of appeal, and no grounds of appeal were filed. The Judge accepted defendant counsel submissions that where no application was made under sections 69 and 70 CPC, the logical course for the State to follow is to make an application to the presiding Magistrate himself, and if refused, to apply for stay pending appeal in the High Court with a copy of the grounds of appeal attached. The Court was critical of the failure of the State to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court when it could have adhered to prescribed procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code. \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Held\endash }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1) On an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court under s. 120(6) Constitution, but not an appeal or stay application, the High Court may use its original inherent powers under s.323 CPC sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to prevent an ab use of its own processes, to regulate proceedings validly brought before it, to stay proceedings in the subordinate courts to protect proceedings brought in the High Court and to ensure that justice is properly administered. Any exercise of that power aff ecting proceedings in the lower courts, should be, and must be limited to the legality and the propriety of decisions made in the subordinate courts.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \fi374\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (2) Submissions of inappropriate behaviour of magistrate must be supported by affidavit evidence, not submissions from the bar table. Submissions from the bar table are unacceptable and amounted to an abuse of the criminal process. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \fi374\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (3) There is no reason to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the HC when the CPC provides a remedy. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Stay of committal proceedings is misconceived and refused as an abuse of the process of Court. \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \fi-374\li374\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 [Note: Act 13/03 has amended the Criminal Procedure Code to remove the requirement of preliminary inquiries or committal proceedings in the Magistrates}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Court and replace it with new proce dures of transferring charges to the High Court wef 13 October 2003]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par Cases referred to in Ruling \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Ah Yick Lemmer}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1905) 2 CLR 593 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Amina Koya v State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 [1998] CAV0002/97 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v Philip}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1995) 1 AC 396 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Connelly v DPP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1964) AC 1254 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 DPP v Humphrys}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1977) AC 1 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 DPP v Hussain}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (The Times) 1 June 1994 \par }\pard \ql \fi-374\li374\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Grahame Bruce Southwick v State}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\langfenp3081\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 1996] AAU0020/96 14 February 1996}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Hui Chi-Ming v R}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1992) \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Jago v District Court of NSW}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1989) 168 Aust. Law Rev. 23 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Pinson v Pinson}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1991) 5 P.R. NZ 177 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 R v Croydon JJ ex p Dean}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 98 Cr.App.R. 540 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 R v Heston-Francois}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1984) Cr.App.R. 209 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 R v Horseferry Road Magistrates}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Court ex p Bennet}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1994) 1 AC 42 \par }\pard \ql \fi-374\li374\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 R v Riebald}{ \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1967) 1 WLR 674 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Ramesh Patel v State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 [1997] AAU0001/97 18 July 1997 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Rt Ovini Bokini v State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe3081\langnp2057\langfenp3081\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1999) }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 45 FLR 273 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 State v Waisale Rokotuiwai}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid0\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1998) 44 FLR 28 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Robert Schuster for the Appellant \par Apisalome Matebalavu with Sevuloni Valenitabua for the Respondents \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 4 January, 2001}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 RULING}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Shameem, J \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 The ten Defendants are jointly charged with Treason, contrary to {\*\bkmkstart s50_PC_State_v_Speight}section 50{\*\bkmkend s50_PC_State_v_Speight} of the Penal Code, Cap. 17. The case has been listed before the learned Chief Magistrate. All Defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charge and have been remanded at Nukulau Island, pending the hearing of the case. The preliminary inquiry is still pending. \par \~ \par By the 14th of December 2000, the prosecution had disclosed 114 witness statements to the defence, but had deleted the names and a ddresses of those witnesses. Counsel for the Defendants applied for disclosure of names and addresses. On 14th December, the learned Chief Magistrate ordered that the names and signatures of the witnesses should not be deleted from their statements to the police, and that the Defendants and/or their agents be prohibited from approaching the prosecution witnesses without the consent of the DPP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s Office. \par \par The matter was called at Nukulau Island on the 20th of December 2000. Mr Vilimone Vosarogo appeared for the State, and informed the learned Chief Magistrate that the State would appeal the ruling within 28 days. He asked the learned Chief Magistrate to adjourn the case pending the result of the appeal. The learned Chief Magistrate refused to do so, and set hearing dates for the oral preliminary inquiry, commencing on the 3rd of January 2001. It appears that four other treason cases are also listed for the same day, for preliminary inquiry. \par \par The State then filed this application. The Notice of Motion dated the 28th of December 2000, is entitled }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 In the Matter of an Appeal by the State pursuant to {\*\bkmkstart s308_CPC_State_v_Speight}section 308{\*\bkmkend s308_CPC_State_v_Speight} of the Criminal Procedure Code}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 , and seeks the following orders: \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "1. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 That the Learned Chief Magistrate be barred from further dealing with the case of Ilikimi Naitini a.k.a George Speight and Others, under Criminal Case No. 2529/2000, pending further order by the High Court of Fiji.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 2.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 That the decision of the Learned Chief Magistrate of the 20th December 2000 to hold a preliminary hearing on Wednesday 3rd January 2001 in a case of treason in criminal Case No. 2529/2000 be set aside, pending further order by the High Court of Fiji. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 3.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 That the decision of the Learned Chief Magistrate made on the 14th December 2000 ordering the prosecution to disclose the names and addresses of 114 prosecution witnesses, in a case of treason in criminal Case No. 2529/2000 be set aside pen ding further order by the High Court of Fiji.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par The affidavit of Vilimone Vosarogo was filed in support of the Motion. That affidavit states that the State wished to exercise its right of appeal under section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the S tate was preparing appeal papers, that the State }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 was entitled as a matter of law to enjoy the period given for appeal}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 , that on application for adjournment pending appeal, the Learned Chief Magistrate said }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 you people are unnecessarily delaying the work of the court and are standing in the way of justice}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 and that the Chief Magistrate said that he would adjourn the hearing after the evidence-in-chief of each witness to allow the Defence to prepare its cross-examination. \par \par At the hearing of this application on 2nd January (the day before the Preliminary Inquiry was due to commence), State Counsel said that the application was not for stay of proceedings pending appeal. He said that it was an application for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the c o urt under section 120(6) of the Constitution, for the date set for oral preliminary inquiry on the 3rd of January 2001, to be vacated until the appeal was filed and heard by the High Court, or until an appeal already filed by the Defence in the case of th e validity of the Immunity Decree 2000, was heard by the Court of Appeal. He relied on evidence of the conduct of the Learned Chief Magistrate in the conduct of the proceedings, the unusual procedure of allowing the Defence an adjournment before cross-exam i ning the prosecution witnesses, and his comments that the prosecution was delaying the course of justice. He also submitted that the Chief Magistrate habitually shook hands with the Defendants after each hearing, but I declined to accept such a submission given from the bar table. The application was made on the basis that the conduct of the Chief Magistrate amounted to an abuse of the criminal process. \par \~ \par Counsel for the Defendants objected to the application. Although he was asked to consider whether he wi shed to consult with his clients, he preferred to proceed on the basis of the papers filed by the State. In his submissions, counsel said that this application was misconceived because it was not brought under the appellate jurisdiction of the court. He s a id that if the application was for the Learned Chief Magistrate to disqualify himself, it should have been made to the Chief Magistrate at the outset. He submitted that an application for suppression of the names of witnesses should also be made properly, either by way of appeal or by way of motion and affidavit. He asked that the application be dismissed. \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 The Application}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par This is not an application for stay pending appeal. The reference to }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 appeal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 in the papers filed by the State is misleading because t here is no appeal. No notice of appeal, and no grounds of appeal have been filed. A stay application pending appeal is normally only considered after the petition of appeal is filed. \par \par This is not an application for name suppression, although the third order sought would appear to envisage such an application. In his submission however, State Counsel only referred to the name suppression application, as one which would be heard }{ \fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 after}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 the appeal was filed, and as a ground for showing bias on the part of the Chief Magistrate. \par \par The application is in reality an application to order the postponement of the preliminary inquiry on the ground that an appeal would be filed, on the ground that the State was not ready to proceed and on the ground that the Chief Magistrate is biased in the way the case is being conducted. \par \par There is no statutory provision for this procedure. The State is not inviting the court to exercise either its appellate or its revisionary jurisdiction. The application purports to be made under the court}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s inherent jurisdiction under section 120 of the 1997 Constitution. \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 The Court}{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s Inherent Jurisdiction}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par The High Court of Fiji undoubtedly exercises original jurisdiction. Section {\*\bkmkstart s_120_1_State_v_Ilikimi_Naitini_2}120(1) {\*\bkmkend s_120_1_State_v_Ilikimi_Naitini_2}of the Constitution provides that: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 The High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil or criminal proceedings under any law and such other original jurisdiction as is conferred on it under this Constitution.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par Section {\*\bkmkstart s_120_6_State_v_Ilikimi_Naitini_2}120(6) {\*\bkmkend s_120_6_State_v_Ilikimi_Naitini_2}provides:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 The High Court has jurisd iction to supervise any civil or criminal proceedings before a subordinate court and may, on an application duly made to it, make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it considers appropriate to ensure that justice is duly administere d by the subordinate court.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par How is this jurisdiction exercised? Section 120(6) provides that an application must have been }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 duly made}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 before the High Court. It has been held, most notably by the House of Lords in }{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Connelly_v_DPP_State_v_Speight}Connelly v DPP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Connelly_v_DPP_State_v_Speight} (1964) AC 1254 at pp.1354-1355, that the court has a general and inherent power to protect its process from abuse. This includes a power to stay prosecutions. In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart DPP_V_Humhrys_State_v_Speight}DPP v Humphrys}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend DPP_V_Humhrys_State_v_Speight}(1977) AC 1, Lord Salmon said, obiter, at page 46C: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 I respectfully agree... that a judge has not and should not have any responsibility for the institution of prosecutions; nor has he any power to refuse to allow a prosecution to proceed mere ly because he considers that, as a matter of policy, it ought not to have been brought. It is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. Fortunately, s uch prosecutions are hardly ever brought but the power of the court to prevent them is in my view, of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Lord Emond Davis said in the same case, at page 55E that:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 While judges should pause long before staying proceedings which on their face are perfectly regular, it would indeed be bad for justice, if in such fortunately rare cases as }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Riebald_State_v_Speight}R v Riebald}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Riebald_State_v_Speight}(1967) 1 WLR 674 their hands were tied an d they were obliged to allow the further trial to proceed. In my judgment, }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Connelly}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 established that they are vested with the power to do what the justice of the case clearly demands....}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par The principles guiding the exercise of the power to stay proceedings for abuse of process, have largely been developed to protect persons from being prosecuted in circumstances where it would be seriously unjust to do so (}{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart AG_Trinidad_T_v_Philip_State_v_Speight}Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v Philip}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend AG_Trinidad_T_v_Philip_State_v_Speight}(1995) 1 AC 396. \par \par In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Hui_Chi_Ming_v_R_State_v_Speight}Hui Chi-Ming v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Hui_Chi_Ming_v_R_State_v_Speight}(1992) the Privy Council held that an abuse of the process was something so unfair and wrong that the prosecution should not be allowed to proceed. In }{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Jago_v_District_Court_NSW_State_v_Speigh}Jago v District Court of NSW}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Jago_v_District_Court_NSW_State_v_Speigh}(1989) CLR, the High Court of Australia held that the court had power to stay proceedings on the ground of prosecutorial delay. \par \par In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Horseferry_Road_State_v_Speight}R v Horseferry Road Magistrates}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Court ex p Ben{\*\bkmkend R_v_Horseferry_Road_State_v_Speight}net}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (1994) 1 AC 42, the House of Lords said that the doctrine of abuse of the process could be applied to ensure that the rule of law was maintained, where there had been misuse of the process of court, where there was great delay in the conduct of the prosecution and where the prosecution has acted in bad faith (}{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Croydon_JJ_exp_Dean_State_v_Speight}R v Croydon JJ ex p Dean}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Croydon_JJ_exp_Dean_State_v_Speight}98 Cr. App. R. 540). \par \par The power of the court to stay proceedings in its inherent jurisdiction was considered by Pain J in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart State_v_Waisale_Rokotu_State_v_Speight}State v Waisale Rokotuiwai} {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend State_v_Waisale_Rokotu_State_v_Speight}Criminal Case No. HAC 0009 of 1995. He found that the High Court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction to ensure that the court}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s processes were used fairly by both sides, but that stay should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. \par \par In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart State_v_Ratu_O_Bokini_State_v_Speight}State v Ratu Ovini Bokini}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend State_v_Ratu_O_Bokini_State_v_Speight}Criminal Appeal No. HAM0032 of 1998, Byrne J invoked his inherent jurisdiction to stay committal proceedings in the Magistrates}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Court after an appeal against a ruling refusing disqualification on the ground of bias had been filed in the High Court. \par \par This decision was upheld on appeal. \par \par On appeal, (}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Ratu_O_Bokini_v_State_State_v_Speight}Ratu Ovini Bokini v The State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Ratu_O_Bokini_v_State_State_v_Speight}Criminal App No. AAU001 of 1999S) the Court of Appeal said that where an appeal has been validly brought, the High Court has power to order a stay pending appeal. At page 394, the Court said: \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 The High Court has inherent power t o control its own process and to ensure that holding measures are taken pending the hearing of the appeal to enable the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to be meaningful. See for example, in the context of a statutory right of appeal }{ \i\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Pinson_v_Pinson_State_v_Speight}Pinson v Pinson}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Pinson_v_Pinson_State_v_Speight} (1991) 5 P.R. NZ 177. There Smellie J granted a stay of execution pending the hearing of an appeal from the Family Court to the High Court of New Zealand.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par Stay is not the only order which can be made when an appeal has been validly brought before the court. The Fiji Court of Appeal in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Ramesh_Patel_v_State_State_v_Speight}Ramesh Patel v State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Ramesh_Patel_v_State_State_v_Speight} Criminal App. No. AAU0001 of 1997 cited the following passage from the judgment of Griffiths CJ in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Ah_Yick_Lemmer_State_v_Speight}Ah Yick Lemmer}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Ah_Yick_Lemmer_State_v_Speight}(1905) 2 CLR 593, 601:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 When there is a general appeal from an inferior court to another court, the court of appeal can entertain any matter, however arising, which shows that the decision of the Court is erroneous.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par Such a power could be exercised, in the court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s revisionary jurisdiction under section {\*\bkmkstart s323_CPC_State_v_Speight}323 {\*\bkmkend s323_CPC_State_v_Speight} of the Criminal Procedure Code. \par \par An application for stay to prevent an abuse of the process may be made, therefore, by either the prosecution or the defence. However the principles have largely been developed to prevent unfairness manipulation and misuse of the court procedures by the pr osecution. The power must be exercised sparingly. In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart DPP_v_Hussain_State_v_Speight}DPP v Hussain}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend DPP_v_Hussain_State_v_Speight} (The Times) June 1 1994, the Divisional Court said that the order is an exceptional one, and should never be made where there were o ther ways of achieving a fair hearing of the case or where there was no evidence of prejudice to the Defendant. \par \par In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Heston_Francois_State_v_Speight}R v Heston-Francois}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Heston_Francois_State_v_Speight}(1984) Cr. App. R. 209 the English Court of Appeal said, at page 218: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 As we have said, the court} {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings is not in doubt. There is high authority for its existence .... There is equally no doubt, in our opinion, that this jurisdiction, the whole scope of which does n ot arise for examination by us, does not include an obligation to hold a pre-trial inquiry, designed to bring about a stay of proceedings into such allegations as the improper obtaining of evidence, tampering with evidence and seizure of a defendant}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s docu ments prepared for his defence. However reprehensible conduct of this kind may be, it is not at least in circumstances such as the present, an abuse, or, in another word, a misuse of the court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s process. It is conduct which, in these circumstances, falls to be dealt with in the trial itself by judicial control upon admissibility of evidence....}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par Finally the scope of the inherent jurisdiction under section 114 of the 1990 Constitution (now section 120(6) of the 1997 Constitution) was discussed by the Fiji Court of Appeal in }{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Southwick_v_The_State_State_v_Speight}Southwick v The Stat{\*\bkmkend Southwick_v_The_State_State_v_Speight}e}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Crim. App. AAU0020 of 1996. In that case Townsley J purported to use the court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s inherent jurisdiction to vary bail conditions granted by the Magistrates}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Court. The Court of Appeal said:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 No doubt that section confers an original jurisdiction on the High Court; but it is not an appellate jurisdiction which enables the High Court to consider the merits of a decision of a Magistrates}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 court. In our view the jurisdiction is limited to consideration of the legality and propriety of such a decision. In particular it confers the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in judicial review proceedings in respect of the Magistrates}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Courts.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par In summar y therefore, the High Court may use its original inherent powers to prevent an abuse of its own processes, to regulate proceedings validly brought before it, to stay proceedings in the subordinate courts to protect proceedings brought in the High Court an d to ensure that justice is properly administered. However any exercise of that power affecting proceedings in the lower courts, should be sparing and exceptional, and must be limited to the legality and the propriety of decisions made in the subordinate c ourts. \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 The Evidence}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par The basis for this application is set out in the affidavit of Vilimone Vosarogo. Although the application does not specify that it purports to invoke the court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s inherent powers to prevent an abuse of the processes of justice, I have treated it as such. State Counsel}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s submissions were certainly made on that basis. \par \par The first complaint is that the Learned Chief Magistrate ordered the disclosure of names and addresses of all prosecution witnesses, to the Defence. This, he says was contrary to the public interest, and the State intends to appeal that decision. \par \par The second complaint is that the Learned Chief Magistrate refused to adjourn the hearing of the committal proceedings pending the result of the appeal. \par \par The third complaint is in respect of two comments made by the Learned Chief Magistrate, that the prosecution was being obstructive and was trying to }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 play a hard game.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par \par The fourth complaint is that the Learned Chief Magistrate decided to adopt a procedure which allowed the Defence to adjourn before cross-examining the witnesses. \par \par The fifth complaint is that the Learned Chief Magistrate refused to stand the case down to allow State Counsel to take instructions from the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, although Defence Counsel had been given time to speak to their clients. \par \par The sixth complaint is that the court set a date for hearing for the 3rd of January when he knew that there was an appeal pending in the Fiji Court of Appeal on the validity of the Immunity Decree 2000. \par \par These circumstances the State says, constitute evidence that there has been an abuse of the process justifying a temporary stay of the committal proceedings until the appeal in th e Court of Appeal is heard, or until the appeal in the High Court (still to be filed) is heard. \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Stay}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par It seems to me that this application, made in the inherent jurisdiction of this court, should have been made using other procedures. \par \par An application for the disqualification of the Chief Magistrate from hearing the case must be made, under sections 69 and {\*\bkmkstart s70_CPC_State_v_Speight}70{\*\bkmkend s70_CPC_State_v_Speight} of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the presiding Magistrate himself. Counsel for the State could not explain why that was not done. However, that procedure was followed in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 State v Ratu Ovini Bokini}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 (supra). When the application was refused, the State appealed against the decision on the following day and simultaneously applied for stay pending appeal. The stay was granted in the High Court. \par \par There appears to be no real reason why the State did not follow that procedure in this case. The State has a right of appeal from interlocutory orders, since the passing of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act on the 1 7th of September 1998. The time for appealing is 28 days. However, if the application for stay pending appeal has been refused in the Magistrates}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Court, the logical course for the State to follow, is to make an application for stay pending appeal in the H igh Court with a copy of the grounds of appeal attached. However the State chose instead to apply for stay on the ground of abuse of the process. With respect, one need not crack a nut with a sledge-hammer. \par \par Dealing therefore with the State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s complaints in turn, the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, is clearly the appropriate one for complaints, one and two. The appropriate procedure of complaints three (the conduct of the Chief Magistrate), four, five and six is {\*\bkmkstart s69_CPC_State_v_Speight}section 69 {\*\bkmkend s69_CPC_State_v_Speight}of the Criminal Procedure Code. \par \par The law on bias is clear. The test is whether there is danger that the hearing is affected by bias, or that a fair-minded observer, knowing the facts, would apprehend or suspect that the trial was affected by bias (}{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkstart Amina_Koya_State_v_State_v_Speight}Amina Koya v State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 {\*\bkmkend Amina_Koya_State_v_State_v_Speight}CAV0002/97). Counsel for the State said that the Learned Chief Magistrate habitually shook hands with the accused persons on his visits to N ukulau. That sort of submission must be supported by affidavit evidence, and if accepted, might be a ground for suspecting bias, or creating a perception of bias. However such an application must be properly made on the basis of affidavit evidence, and on the basis of the court record, and must be made to the Chief Magistrate himself. If the State or the Defence is dissatisfied with his decision, an appeal can be lodged in the High Court. There is no reason to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High C ourt when the Criminal Procedure Code provides a remedy for this sort of application. \par \par Similarly the remedy for complaints four, five and six rests in the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. The procedures for committal proceedings can be examined by the High Court in the appeal against the ruling for disclosure of names and addresses of witnesses. The refusal to stay the proceedings pending appeal, can be revisited by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction. \par \par There is no reason to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court, when statute provides remedies for all the complaints made by affidavit. Indeed, in considering the nature of the complaints, it is difficult to see how the court, in its inherent juris diction, could avoid considering the merits of the Chief Magistrate}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 s decision on disclosure, and on adjournment, and could therefore avoid acting outside of its jurisdiction. \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Conclusion}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par The papers filed by the State, and the submissions made to me, fail to persuade me to take the exceptional step of staying the committal proceedings in this case, on the ground that there has been an abuse of the process by the Chief Magistrate. \par \par The State has other statutory remedies which it has failed to use. The Stat e can simply appeal those decisions of the Chief Magistrate it disagrees with, and can apply for stay pending appeal, in the High Court if the Chief Magistrate refuses to adjourn the proceedings. The assertion by the State that the 28 day appeal period sh ould be treated as an automatic stay is misconceived. It is important, in applying for stay, that any Appellant act with due dispatch to file both appeal and stay application. Merely informing the court that there will be an appeal cannot and should not lea d to an automatic stay, particularly in the case of an interlocutory appeal. An appeal must be filed immediately and a stay applied for properly. \par \par This application is therefore misconceived. I dismiss it for the reasons I}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8795817 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 have given. \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard\plain \s15\qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 \f180\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Application dismissed. \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\i\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 \par }\pard \s15\qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15477491\charrsid8795817 Marie Chan \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8795817 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1972231\charrsid8795817 \par }}