{\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};} {\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;}{\f36\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\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 \styrsid12867559 Normal;}{ \s2\qj \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 \styrsid12867559 heading 2;}{\*\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 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid12867559 Body Text;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\sl480\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid12867559 Body Text 2;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid12867559 header;}{\*\cs18 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid12867559 page number;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid811014\rsid862776\rsid933470 \rsid1009808\rsid1266297\rsid1598413\rsid1972231\rsid2127959\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid2640816\rsid2781433\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4458544 \rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6306763\rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6882538\rsid6953338\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7818236\rsid7958375\rsid8016262 \rsid8083724\rsid8197485\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid9189166\rsid9270374\rsid9330077\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9776131\rsid10355983\rsid10500829\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid11014019\rsid11077494\rsid11292607 \rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12015529\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12867559\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14309081\rsid14496123\rsid14510136 \rsid14567563\rsid14695321\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16393740\rsid16458609\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 raikatalau_l}{\creatim\yr2011\mo6\dy16\hr14\min34}{\revtim\yr2011\mo6\dy16\hr14\min34}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages6}{\nofwords2326} {\nofchars10979}{\*\company Pacific Legal Information Institue}{\nofcharsws13236}{\vern24689}}\paperw10325\paperh14573\margl1440\margr1440\margt1008\margb1008 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1440\dgvorigin1008\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot12867559\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6882538 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6882538 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6882538 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6882538 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \psz13\linex0\endnhere\titlepg\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid933470\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brsp20 \tqc\tx3553\tqr\tx7293\tqr\tx8789\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6306763 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470 \tab }{\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid14567563 Vinod Lal v State}{\fs16\insrsid10500829 (CA)}{\cs18\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470 \tab }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs18\fs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid6882538 6}}}{ \fs16\insrsid10500829 }{\cs18\fs16\insrsid10500829\charrsid933470 \par }\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14567563 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10500829 \par }}{\headerf \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brsp20 \tqc\tx3553\tqr\tx7293\tqr\tx8789\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6306763 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst { \cs18\fs16\insrsid10500829 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs18\fs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid6882538 1}}}{\cs18\fs16\insrsid10500829 \tab }{\fs16\cgrid0\insrsid10500829 (2001) 2 FLR}{\cs18\fs16\insrsid10500829 \tab \par }\pard \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16393740 {\insrsid10500829 \par }}{\*\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\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid10355983 {\*\bkmkstart Vinod_Lal_v_State_State_v_Rajesh}{\*\bkmkstart Vinod_Lal_v_State}VINOD LAL v STATE \par {\*\bkmkend Vinod_Lal_v_State_State_v_Rajesh}{\*\bkmkend Vinod_Lal_v_State} \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid10355983 Court of Appeal Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 19, }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid10355983 22 November}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 ,}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid10355983 2001 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid10355983 AAU 0004/01S}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 Criminal procedure}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 \endash leave to appeal to Supreme Court \endash }{ \i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 principles on which leave granted - }{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 framing of que}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 stions for certification to be q}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 ue}{ \i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 s}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 t}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 i}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 ons of significant public importance}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 \par \par Homicide \endash murder \endash self defence \endash when defence properly arises -}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 whether appellate Court erred in refusing to accept }{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 self-d efence as a defence \endash whether test is \lquote slight evidence\rquote or \lquote credible evidential foundation\rquote }{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 is not a question of significant public importance}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 - provocation - }{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 Constitution }{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 ss28(1)(d), 122(2)}{\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid16458609 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559 The Appellant strangled and smo thered his de facto partner to death after, on his account, she had attempted to strangle him while he was asleep. The High Court ruled that it would not accept the Appellant\rquote s counsel to advance self-defence. The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. The A ppellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test of whether self defence should be left to the assessors. The Appellant\rquote s counsel contended that the test should have been \'93}{ \i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid8197485 where there is slight evidence}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 which if accepted could raise a prima facie case of self defence, this should be left to the jury, even if the accused has not formally relied upon self defence \'94, whereas the }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9330077 Court of Appeal relied on the commonly applied test of whether \'93there had been a }{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9330077 credible evidential foundation}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9330077 ...\'94}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 . }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9330077 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 Held\endash }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 (1) what constitutes a question of significant public importance: the }{\caps\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2127959 a}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 pplicant has to demonstrate the existence of a question of public importance, and that it must be a significant one.}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 Applications are not simply for leave to re-argue issues in the case. \par }\pard\plain \qj \fi374\li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs22\insrsid12867559 (2) The formula for determining whether there was credible evidence of self-defence to leave to assessors used by an appellate Court is a well-established one, albeit delivered in short-hand, an d counsel could advance no reason for departing from it and substituting a test more favourable to the }{\caps\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2127959 a}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 ccused. It is not in the public interest, or in the interests of justice, that defences based on a foundation lacking potential credibility must be put before assessors. They are more likely to confuse than assist the course of justice. \par (3) At trial, and on the appeal, counsel did not argue any verbal distinction of the kind the Appellant now wishes to argue before the Supreme Court. The evidence was ins ufficient to allow self defence to be advanced, regardless of the test adopted. There was thus no question of a new principle, or of the amendment of an existing principle, involved, and the point was not of significant public importance. \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 \par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559 Counsel, being u nable to formulate any question for determination, the Court refuses to certify any question of significant public importance. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused. \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 \par }{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 C}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 ases referred}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid14309081 }{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 to}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 in }{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 J}{ \b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 udgment \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 DPP v Bailey}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 [1995] 1 Cr.App.R 257 \par }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 DPP v Walker}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 [1974] 1 WLR 1090 \par }{\b\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 Lee Chun Chuen v The Queen}{\b\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 }{\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 [1963] 1 }{\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 All ER}{ \fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 73}{\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 \par }{\b\i\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 Lee Chun Chuen v Anderson}{\b\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 }{\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 [1963] }{\fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559 NZLR}{ \fs22\cgrid0\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 29 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 R v Anderson}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 }{ \fs22\insrsid12867559 [1963] NZLR 29 \par }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 R v Tavete}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 [1988] 1 NZLR 428 \par }{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sa15\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs22\cf1\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12867559 Abhay K Singh for the Appellant}{\i\fs22\cf1\insrsid12867559 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sb15\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\i\fs22\cf1\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12867559 Gregor Allan for the Respondent}{\i\fs22\cf1\insrsid12867559 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs22\insrsid12867559 22 November, 2001\tab \tab \tab }{\b\caps\fs22\insrsid12867559 judgment} {\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par \par }{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9270374 Eichelbaum, }{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 Sheppard}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9270374 , Smellie}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 ,}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9270374 J}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 J}{ \b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9270374 A}{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 On 18 October 2001 this Court dismissed the applicant\rquote s appeal against his conviction for murder. He now applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Under {\*\bkmkstart Const_122_2_Vinod_Lal_v_State} Section 122(2) {\*\bkmkend Const_122_2_Vinod_Lal_v_State}of the Constitution, for the applicant to be successful he must persuade this Court to certify that the proposed appeal raises a question of \'93significant public importance\'94. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par In brief the facts were that the applicant strangled and smothered his de facto partner to death after, on his account, she had attempted to strangle him while he was asleep. The principal defence was provocation, which one assessor accepted. However, the majority of the assessors, and the Judge, rejected it. \par \par The Judge declined to allow applicant\rquote s counsel to advance self-defence, a ruling upheld by this Court on appeal. The first ground on which the application for leave is advanced relates to the terms in which this Court upheld that ruling. The applicant wishes to contend that this Court was wrong in saying: \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri526\widctlpar\tx720\tx748\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin720\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \'93}{ \insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 It is common ground that if there had been a credible evidential foundation for the defence the Judge ought to have directed the assessors about it, notwithstanding that }{\insrsid12867559 Appellant}{ \insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 \rquote s Counsel had not advanced the defence.\'94 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 The formula used by the Court was a common shorthand for an approach habitually applied. Instead, according to the applicant the appropriate principle is that \'93where there is slight evidence which if accepted could raise a prima facie case of self defence, this should be left to the jury, even if the accused has not formally relied upon self defence\'94. The difference between the formula applied by the Court, and that advocated by counsel for the }{ \fs22\insrsid12867559 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 , is subtle. It seems to lie in the substitution of the phrase \'93slight evidence which if accepted}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 188 \\f "Symbol" \\s 11}{\fldrslt\f3\fs22}}}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \'94 for \'93credible evidential foundation\'94. \par \par An initial comment is that having checked the written submissions filed in support and in opposition to the appeal, we have found no sign of any such distinction being advanced on the appeal. At that stage counsel for the }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 cited many authorities, from different jurisdictions, which dealt with or referred in passing to the sufficiency of the foundation required before a trial judge was obliged to put a defence to a jury. Understandably they do not all put the test in the same terms, but a common theme, to take words from }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 {\*\bkmkstart DPP_v_Walker_Vinod_Lal_v_State}DPP v Walker}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 {\*\bkmkend DPP_v_Walker_Vinod_Lal_v_State} [1974] 1 WLR 1090, 1095 is that a judge is not obliged to put any impossible defence which human ingenuity might conceivably devise. \par \par The test of a credible evidential foundation has a respectable pedigree. It goes back at least as far as }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 {\*\bkmkstart Lee_Chuen_v_Queen_Vinod_Lal_v_State}Lee Chun Chuen v The Queen}{ \i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 {\*\bkmkend Lee_Chuen_v_Queen_Vinod_Lal_v_State}[1963] 1 All ER 73 where at page 77 the Privy Council on an appeal from Hong Kong said: \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar \tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12867559 \b\v\fs18\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 {\tc {\b\fs18\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \tcl2}}}{\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 If there was some material on which a jury acting reasonably could hav e found manslaughter, it cannot be said with certainty that they would have found murder. It is not of course for the defence to make out a prima facie case of provocation. It is for the prosecution to prove that the killing was unprovoked. All that th e defence need to do is to point to material which could induce a reasonable doubt. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 Then at page 78 the judgment continued: \par }\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\tx720\tx748\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 The truth of an accused\rquote s story is always a jury question }{\ul\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 provided that it is credible}{ \insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 , that is, unless there are clear and unchallengeable facts with which it cannot possibly be reconciled.}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 (emphasis added). \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par Finally at page 79, after referring to the three essential elements making up provocation in law, their Lordships said: \par }\pard \s15\qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\f0\fs20\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 The defence cannot require the issue to be left to the jury }{\f0\fs20\ul\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 unless there has been produced to the jury a credible narrative of events suggesting the presence of these three elements.}{ \f0\fs20\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 }{\f0\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 (emphasis added).}{\f0\fs20\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 The New Zealand Court of Appeal, sitting as a bench of 5, cited }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid11077494 Lee Chun Chuen }{\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid11077494 in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid11077494 R v Anderson}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 [1963] NZLR 29. Based on the Court\rquote s reliance on that authority for the appropriate test, the headnote of the report stated: \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj \li748\ri720\widctlpar\tx720\tx748\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin748\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\fs20\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 What is essential is that there should be produced, either from as much of the accused\rquote s evidence as i s acceptable, from the evidence of other witnesses or from a reasonable combination of both, a credible narrative of events disclosing material that suggests provocation in law. If no such narrative is obtainable from the evidence the question of provocat ion should not be left to the jury. \par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 This test has commonly been applied in New Zealand ever since. \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 When we asked Mr Singh what cases he relied on in support of his preferred formulation of the test he referred to cases he had cited on the hearing of the appeal, }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 {\*\bkmkstart DPP_v_Bailey_Vinod_Lal_v_State}DPP v Bailey}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 {\*\bkmkend DPP_v_Bailey_Vinod_Lal_v_State}[1995] 1 Cr App R 257 and }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Tavete_Vinod_Lal_v_State}R v Tavete}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Tavete_Vinod_Lal_v_State} [1988] 1 NZLR 428. The former, a Privy Council appeal from Jamaica, does not contain any reference to a test framed in the }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 \rquote s terms. The nearest the judgment gets to it is in referring to evidence on behalf of an accused which is \'93not strong\'94. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 In passing we note that the Board referred to the unlikelihood of t}{\fs22\insrsid12867559 he situation where provocation }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 would properly be allowed, but where it would not be appropriate to allow self-defence based on the same facts. In a jurisdiction where words, as well as conduct, may constitute provocation, we have some difficulty with that as a general proposition. We do not see it can have any application to the facts of the present case. \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 Turning to }{ \b\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid1266297 Tavete}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid1266297 ,}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 this authority does not assist the applicant. To the contrary, at page 430 the Court of Appeal of New Zealand said: \par }\pard \s16\qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\tx720\tx748\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs20\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 Self-defence should be put to the jury where, from the evidence led by the Crown or given by or on behalf of the accused, there is a credible or plausible narrative which might lead the jury to entertain the reasonable possibility of self-defence. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 Counsel was unable to refer us to any case in this Court ruling on the question of the precise formula. We do not consider the issue is one of \'93significant public importance\'94. First, the form ula used by this Court is a well-established one, and no reason has been advanced for departing from it and substituting what counsel evidently regards as a test more favourable to the accused. It is not in the public interest, or in the interests of just i ce, that defences based on a foundation lacking potential credibility must be put before assessors. They are more likely to confuse than assist the course of justice. Second, this case did not turn, and does not now turn, on any verbal distinction of the kind the }{\fs22\insrsid12867559 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 wishes to argue before the Supreme Court. At trial, and on the appeal, the question was whether the available evidence justified allowing the defence to be advanced. For the reasons given by the Court in its judgment on the appeal, the ev idence was insufficient to allow self defence to be advanced, regardless of the test adopted. No question of a new principle, or of the amendment of an existing principle, is involved, and the point is not of significant public importance. \par \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 As a second gro und applicant contended that if unchallenged the judgment will be regarded as establishing that even if a defence counsel was negligent in that he failed to challenge a confession as directed by the accused, or told the accused to admit everything he was asked by the prosecutor, the confession and admissions will be taken as valid and as justifying the conviction. \par \par The short answer is that the judgment will be so regarded only by those who have misread it. The judgment shows the Court was not satisfied that the applicant gave instructions to challenge the confession. It added that in any event there was no indicatio n the }{\f0\fs22\insrsid12867559 Appellant}{\f0\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 was able to give any different account from what was contained in the confession, which was confirmed by similar accounts he gave to other witnesses the admissibility of whose evidence was not open to challenge. As to the contention that tri al counsel instructed the applicant to agree with whatever the prosecutor put to him, the judgment said the assertion was so far-fetched as to defy credulity. \par \par The third ground was framed as follows: \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \li720\ri526\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin526\lin720\itap0\pararsid12867559 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid12867559\charrsid2640816 That the Supreme Court needs to rule on the interpretation and or the rights of the Accused on the Bill of Rights under the 1997 Fiji Constitution. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\keep\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 That the Supreme Court needs to rule on the interpretation and or the rights of the Accused on the Bill of Rights under the 1997 Fiji Constitution.}{\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\keep\widctlpar \tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \b\v\fs22\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 {\tc { \b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \tcl2That the Supreme Court needs to rule on the interpretation and or the rights of the Accused on the Bill of Rights under the 1997 Fiji Constitution.}}}{\fs18\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 Counsel said the particular provision to which this was intended to refers was section 28(1)(d) of the Constitut ion. In argument counsel was unable to formulate any question relating to the interpretation of that provision, or as to the rights of the accused under it, which arose on the appeal. As will be seen from the judgment counsel had raised a question of the applicant not being afforded his rights but the Court was of the view that the facts did not support this. Before us, eventually counsel withdrew the contention. \par \par Before parting with the case we wish to say something about applications to this Court for cer tificates under s 122(2). We suggested to counsel that in a future application it would be helpful to hear argument on the approach the Court should take in principle to the issue of what constitutes a question of significant public importance. There may b e overseas authority on similar provisions. In the meantime it must be understood that such applications are not simply for leave to re-argue issues in the case. The plain words of the Constitution show that to obtain leave from this Court, the applicant h as to demonstrate the existence of a question of public importance, and that it must be a significant one. There may be cases where the test is satisfied notwithstanding that the issue is one of fact alone, but generally there will need to be a significan t issue of principle involved before this Court will grant its certificate. \par \par In this case, for the reasons given we dismiss the application. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\fs18\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par }{\b\fs22\ul\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 Result}{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid2781433 \par Application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court dismissed. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\b\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9270374 \par }\pard\plain \s16\qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 Application }{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 for leave to appeal to Supreme Court fails}{\i\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid4458544 . \par }\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs22\insrsid12867559 \par }{\fs22\insrsid12867559\charrsid9270374 Marie Chan \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12867559 {\b\fs22\insrsid12867559 \sect }\sectd \pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1800\margrsxn1800\margtsxn1440\margbsxn1440\linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1972231 \par }}