{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang5129\deflangfe5129{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f62\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f63\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f65\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f66\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f67\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f68\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f69\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f70\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\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe5129\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp5129 \snext0 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;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2315\rsid615694\rsid674633\rsid863363\rsid984808\rsid1118293 \rsid1141162\rsid1261430\rsid1533144\rsid1601886\rsid1604284\rsid2111561\rsid2317333\rsid2324252\rsid2782145\rsid2909626\rsid2974298\rsid3036211\rsid3302745\rsid3417681\rsid3952783\rsid3997908\rsid4079415\rsid4194870\rsid4279455\rsid4327307\rsid4356938 \rsid4411375\rsid4470239\rsid4588335\rsid4660916\rsid4750592\rsid4785540\rsid5122208\rsid5318077\rsid5511236\rsid5589790\rsid5923778\rsid6506766\rsid6507459\rsid6576189\rsid6578605\rsid6758600\rsid6847722\rsid6891534\rsid7171798\rsid7372146\rsid8016622 \rsid8088095\rsid8144508\rsid8206401\rsid8224728\rsid8284738\rsid8325889\rsid8413753\rsid8460965\rsid8467070\rsid8529626\rsid8534174\rsid8541770\rsid8546870\rsid8806998\rsid8858906\rsid8978481\rsid9053154\rsid9253563\rsid9256293\rsid9267965\rsid9465180 \rsid9523721\rsid9642382\rsid9778270\rsid10098266\rsid10168058\rsid10225726\rsid10236887\rsid10381917\rsid10430483\rsid10573702\rsid10578791\rsid10778081\rsid10780002\rsid11011866\rsid11081921\rsid11092236\rsid11339847\rsid11471946\rsid11536344 \rsid11752194\rsid11818308\rsid11868966\rsid11888511\rsid11935160\rsid11936162\rsid11954607\rsid12069734\rsid12072506\rsid12205612\rsid12345120\rsid12615545\rsid12807141\rsid12852806\rsid13191385\rsid13439881\rsid13523519\rsid13632854\rsid13784272 \rsid13786135\rsid13899347\rsid13905031\rsid13920060\rsid13923215\rsid13975369\rsid14039451\rsid14170280\rsid14485815\rsid14550520\rsid14553878\rsid15223610\rsid15345123\rsid15621103\rsid15747986\rsid15940729}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.4219;}{\info {\author Emalus Campus}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2004\mo1\dy27\hr17\min15}{\revtim\yr2004\mo2\dy5\hr17\min22}{\version105}{\edmins336}{\nofpages30}{\nofwords12626}{\nofchars71971}{\*\company USP}{\nofcharsws84429}{\vern16469}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6891534 \fet0\sectd \linex0\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 \qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13899347 \fs20\lang1033\langfe5129\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp5129 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13899347\charrsid2324252 [2003] 4 LRC 712 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13899347 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13899347\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11936162 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 SUPREME COURT OF FIJI \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8460965 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 Civil Jurisdiction}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11936162 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8460965 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid984808\charrsid2324252 BETWEEN:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11936162 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11936162 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 MATALULU AND ANOTHER \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8460965 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 Petitioners/Appellant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8460965 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11936162 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid984808\charrsid2324252 AND:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11936162 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8460965 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 Respondent}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3997908 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 Coram: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Von Doussa}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 , Keith }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 J and French J \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par Date of Judgment:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3997908\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 17 April 2003 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 Counsels: \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 Isireli Fa}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 for the Petitioners/Appellants}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3997908\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid3997908 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3997908\charrsid2324252 Gerard McCoy QC}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3997908\charrsid2324252 (Director of Public Prosecutions) for the Respondent.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8460965\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2324252 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1) }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Appeal }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Supreme Court }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Special leave to appeal }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 judicial review }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Director of Public Prosecutions taking over private prosecution and entering nolle prosequi }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed by Court of Appeal }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Application for special leave to appeal to Supreme Court }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Statute specifying different criteria for grant of special leave in civil and criminal cases respectively }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Whether matter civil or criminal }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Whether raising matters of substantial general interest to administration}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 of civil }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 justice }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8529626\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Whether special leave to be granted }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Supreme Court Act}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1998, s 7(3) }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 High Court Rules}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 , }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Ord 53 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Penal Code (Cap 17), s 117. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2324252 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (2) Administrative law }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Judicial review }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Director of Public Prosecutions }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Prosecutorial discretion }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Director of Public Prosecutions taking over private prosecution and entering nolle prosequi }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Whether decision subject to judicial review }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Whether principles of judicial review applying }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Appropriate test }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Relevant considerations }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Constitution of Fiji 1990. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2324252 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (3) Criminal law }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Perjury }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Affidavits of evidence }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Affidavits sworn before Commissioner of Oaths for use in judicial proceedings }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Statements therein alleged to be false }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \endash }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12072506\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Whether}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 such affidavits within statutory definition of perjury}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Penal Code}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (Cap}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 7)}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s 117. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11936162\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid863363 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1994 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 N was appointed to the office of Tui}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 Nadi (a paramount chief title).}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 That appointment gave rise to lengthy litigation. It was unsuccessfully challenged in judicial review proceedings in the High Court in }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1995. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 On appeal, the Court of Appeal in a consent order granted leave to apply for judi cial review, declared the appointment invalid and required the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission to conduct an inquiry into the rightful holder of the title. A Native Lands Commissioner ruled in October }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1997 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 that N was the rightful Tui Nadi}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . That decision was quashed by a judgment of March }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2000. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In April }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1997 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 the petitioners, M and R, filed private complaints alleging that N and two others had sworn false affidavits in the first round of judicial review proceedings in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1995, }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 contrary to s }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 117 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 of the Penal Code which prohibited false sworn statements in judicial proceedings. Those prosecutions were taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions in December }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1997 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 and a nolle prosequi was entered, termin}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 ating each of the prosecutions. }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 M and R successfully applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the DPP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 allowed an appeal from the decision, holding that s 117 did not apply to the swearing of affidavits and that judicial review of the DPP's decision to enter a nolle prosequi was avail}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 able only on rare occasions of \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 flagrant impropriety}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . M and R applied for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under s 7 of the Supreme Court Act 1998, raising the following issues: the re}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 quirements }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 for the grant of such special leave; the relevant considerations for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review; whether, and to what extent, the decision of the DPP to enter a nolle prosequi was susceptible to judicial review and whether s 117 of the Penal Code applied to the swearing of an affidavit before a Commissioner of Oaths, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 HELD}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 : Special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid863363 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1) The petition for special leave to appeal arose from a proceeding in which M and R sought judicial review of the DPP's decision to enter a nolle prosequi on a private prosecution for a criminal offence. There w}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 as a question whether it was a \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 criminal matter}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 or a }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 civil matter}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 for the purposes of s 7 of the Supreme Court Act 1998. The better view was that the matter, involving the review in civil proceedings of the exercise of the powers of a public officer, was best regarded as a civil matter. The threshold for the grant of special leav e in criminal matters was lower than in civil matters, because the liberty of the subject might be at issue, but it was undesirable to encourage fragmentation of the criminal process by placing civil proceedings for judicial}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 review of decisions made in connection with that process on the same footing. Section 7(3) of the Act restricted the grant of special leave to cases raising far}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 reaching }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 questions of law or matters of \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 great general or public importance}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 \rquote or of \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 substantial general interest to the administration of civil justice}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12615545\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . The instant case raised three issues of substantial general interest to the administration of civil justice: the operation of Ord 53 of the High Court Rules and the criteria for the grant of leave to issue judicial review procee dings thereunder; the availability of judicial review in connection with the prosecutorial discretion of the DPP and its interaction with the leave requirement under Ord 53 (which might also be seen as a matter of great general or public importance, havin g regard to its potential for impinging on the operation of the criminal justice system) and the somewhat narrower}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 question relating to the construction of s 117 of the Penal Code and its application to the swearing of false affidavits. The DPP having terminated the prosecution in part on the basis that there was no liability under s 117, there was no other forum to test that view, which of itself also raised a matter of general importance. Accordingly, the grant of special leave to appeal was warranted (see pp 730}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 733, below). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Per curiam.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court has considered the application of the criteria for the grant of special leave in this case with some particularity. Petitioners for special leave should ensure that when they frame their petitions, they do so wit h care. The Supreme Court of Fiji is not a court in which decisions of the Court of Appeal will be routinely reviewed. The requirement for special leave is to be taken seriously. Such leave will not be granted lightly. Too low a standard for its grant wou ld undermine the authority of the Court of Appeal and distract the Supreme Court from its role as the final appellate body, by}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 burdening it with appeals that do not raise matters of general importance or}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 a principle or, in the criminal jurisdi}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 ction, \lquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 substantial and grave injustice}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (see}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 p 731, below). \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 (2) J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 udicial review of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion was to be exercised sparingly}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In such cases, it was sufficient to apply established principles of judicial review. These had proper regard to the great width of the DPP's discretion and the polycentric character of official decision}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 making in such matters, including policy and public interest considerations which were not susceptible of judicial review because it was within neither the constitutional function nor the practical competence of the courts to assess their merits. That approach subsumed concerns about the separation of powe rs. A mistaken view of the law upon which a proposed prosecution was based would not constitute a ground for judicial review in connection with the institution}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 of a prosecution. The appropriate forum for determining the correctness of the prosecutor's view was the court in which the prosecution was commenced. Where the DPP decided to discontinue a prosecution on the basis of a mistaken view of the law then, by definition}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 , }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 there was no court proceeding within which that view could be tested and it might be th at a stronger case for review could be made. Decisions to initiate or not to initiate or to discontinue prosecutions might be based on judgments about the prospects of success on questions of law and fact. The DPP was empowered to make such judgments even though they might be wrong on the law or mistaken on the facts. In the instant case,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 the DPP based the decision in }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 part upon a construction}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 of s 117 of the Penal Code which had been settled in Fiji for over thirty years and upheld by the Court of Appeal, a lthough now shown (below) to be erroneous. There was no credible basis for suggesting that in coming to that view the DPP acted other than in good faith. The decision could not have been reviewable on that ground. No other viable ground for review having been advanced by the appellants in their original}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 application, it would have been quite proper in the circumstances to refuse leave. The fact that the DPP's view and that of the court on the point was wrong did not give rise to a ground which would have jus tified the grant of leave to seek judicial review in the first place (see pp 736}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 737, below). }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Kostuch v A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G of Alberta (1995) }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 128 DLR (4th) 440 and }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Krieger v Law Society of Alberta }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2002 SCC 65, [2003] 3 LRC 249 disapproved. }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Wayte v United States}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1985) 470}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 US 598, }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v DPP, ex p C}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1995) 1 Cr App R 136 and }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v DPP, ex p Kebeline}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [2000] 3 LRC 377 considered. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid863363\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10225726 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Per curiam.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (i) The decisions of the DPP which it was sought to challenge were made under powers conferred by the 1990 Constitution. Springing directly from a written constitution they were not to be treated as a modern}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 formulation of ancient prerogative authority. T hey were to be exercised within constitutional limits. While it was unnecessary to explore the constitutional limits in full, it might be accepted that a purported exercise of power would be reviewable if it were made: }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1) in excess of the DPP's constitutional or statutory powers; }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (2) when, contrary to the provisions of the Consti}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 tution, the DPP could be shown t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 o have acted under the direction or control of another person or authority and to have failed to exercise his or her own }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 i}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ndependent discretion; }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (3) in bad faith; }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (4) in abuse of the process of the}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 court in which it was instituted, although the proper forum for review of that action would ordinarily be the court involved, and }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5318077\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5318077 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (5) where the DPP had fettered his or her discretion by a rigid policy (see pp 735}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 736, below). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10225726 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (ii) The judge considering the grant of leave to issue judicial review proceedings has a discretion, once a sufficient interest is shown by the applicant. That discretion has to be informed by the evident purpose of}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Ord 53. It is not an occasion for a trial of issues in the proposed proceedings. The judge is entitled to have regard to a variety of factors relevant to the purpos}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12852806\charrsid2324252 e of the rule. These include: \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12852806 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12852806\charrsid2324252 (}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1) whether the proposed application is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court; }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12852806\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10225726 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12852806\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12852806 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (2) whether the application discloses arguable grounds for review based upon facts supported by affidavit; }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4411375 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12852806 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (3) whether the application serves any useful purpose; }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4411375 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12852806 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (4) whether there is an obvious alternative remedy, such as administrative review or appeal on the merits, which has not been exhausted by the applicant and }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4411375 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4411375 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (5) whether a restrictive approach to the grant of leave is warranted because the de cision is one which is amenable to only limited judicial review. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4411375 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4411375\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The question whether there are arguable grounds for review is not to be determined by the resolution of contestable issues of law. Where a proposed application for judicial review depends u pon grounds involving assertions of law or fact which are manifestly untenable, then leave will not be granted (see p 733, below). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (iii) The court acknowledged the very special circumstances which brought P about the course of decision}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 making in this case but emphasised that it should not be taken as a model for the way in which most applications for leave under Ord 53 or appeals from decisions made under that rule should be conducted (see p 733, below). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx432\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (3) It may properly be said that a Commissioner of Oaths before whom an affidavit was sworn authenticated the statements made in it within the f}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 meaning of s 117 of the Penal Code. Order 41 of the High Court Rules made plain the duty of a Commissioner of O aths to be satisfied that a deponent understood the contents of an affidavit and also emphasised the necessary independence of a Commissioner of Oaths. All the other elements of s 117 were satisfied where a person swore an affidavit for the purpose of use as evidence in a judicial proceeding. There was no relevant distinction to be}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 drawn between a party who swore an affidavit of his or her evidence or any other witness in the proposed proceedings. The provisions of s 117 extended at least to affidavits of e vidence sworn for use in judicial proceedings, whether or not they were in fact relied upon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11092236\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (see pp 738}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 739, below). Dicta of Kaye J in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Bourke v Davis}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1889) 44 Ch D 110 at 126 applied. }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11092236\charrsid2324252 Lal}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11092236\charrsid2324252 [1967] 13 Fiji LR 1 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 and }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G v Mariappan Gounder}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1967}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11092236\charrsid2324252 ]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 13 Fiji LR 123 overruled}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11092236\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Per curiam.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It is desirable that the statute law be clear and the court respectfully suggests that some express provision be made for the false swearing of affidavits (see p 739, below). \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11092236\charrsid2324252 Editors\rquote }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 note}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 : This judgment was originally reported in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Hong Kong Cases}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 ([2003]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2 HKC 457). \par Section 117 of the Penal Code is set out at p 725, below. \par Orders 41 and 53 of the High Court Rules, so far as material, are set out at pp 725, 738, below. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Section 7 of the Supreme Court Act 1998, so far as material, is set out at}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 p 725, below.] \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Cases referred to in judgment \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G v Mariappan Gounder}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1967] 13 Fiji LR 123, Fiji HC }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Bourke v Davis}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1889) 44 Ch D 110, 38 WR 167, 62 LT 34 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Fiji Airline Pilots' Association v Permanent}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Secretary for Labour and Industrial Relations}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (Civ App, ABU 0059/1997S, 27 February 1998, unreported) }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10225726\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1977] 3 All ER 70, [1978] AC 435, UK HL }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 IRC v National Federation of Self}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Employed and Small Businesses Ltd }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1981] 2 All ER 93, [1982] AC 617, UK HL \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Kostuch v A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G of Alberta}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1995) 128 DLR (4th) 440, Alta CA}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 C }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Krieger v Law Society of Alberta}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2002 SCC 65, [2003] 3 LRC 249, (2002) 217 DLR (4th) 513, Can SC \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Lal v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1967] 13 Fiji LR 1, Fiji HC \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Maxwell v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1996] 1 LRC 299, (1995) 184 CLR 501, Aus HC }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Quebec (A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G) v Chartrand}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1987) 40 CCC (3d) 270, Que CA }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v Balderstone}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1983) 8 CCC (3d) 532, Man CA \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v DPP, ex p C}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1995] 1 Cr App R 136, UK DC \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v DPP, ex p Kebeline}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [2000] 3 LRC 377, [1999] All ER 801, [2000] 2 AC 326, UK HL \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v Power}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1994] 1 SCR 601, 89 CCC (3d) 1, Can SC \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Raymond v A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1982] 2 All ER 487, [1982] 1 QB 839, UK CA}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Rokomatu Namulo v Native Lands and Fisheries Commission}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (HBJ 0021/1997L, unreported) \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Wayte v United States}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6576189\charrsid2324252 (1985) 470 US }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 598, US SC \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Legislation referred to in judgment \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Fiji \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Constitution of Fiji 1970, s 85 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Constitution of Fiji 1990, ss 96, 131, 158 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Constitution of Fiji 1997, ss 114, 156, 169, 170, 193(2), 194(10), 195 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Criminal Procedure Code, ss 71, 78, 323 \par High Court Rules, Ord 33 r 3, Ord 41 rr 3(1), 8, Ord 53 r 3(2) }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par I}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 nterpretation Act 1967 (Cap 7), s 2 \par Legal Practitioners Act 1965 (Cap 254), s 31}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Legal Practitioners Act 1997, s 115 \par Penal Code (Cap 17), ss 4, 117, 120 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Supreme Court Act 1998, s 7(2), (3)h \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 United Kingdom \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s 10}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Rules of the Supreme Court, Ord 53 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Other }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2324252 sources referred to in judgment}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Supreme }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2324252 Court Practice 1991 (UK), p 823}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Supr}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 eme }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Court Practice 2002 (UK), p 1158 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Petition \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14550520 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The petitioners, Livai Lila Matalulu and Navitalai Rasolosolo, sought special leave from the Supreme Court of Fiji to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal (12 February 1999) allowing the appeal against the decision by Fatiaki J (16 July 1998) to grant leave to apply for judicial review against a decision by the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to take over}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 the petitioners' private prosec}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6576189\charrsid2324252 utions and enter nolle prosequis}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . The facts are set out in the judgment of the court. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Isireli Fa}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6576189\charrsid2324252 for the petitioners/}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 appellants. \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Gerard McCoy QC }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (Director of Public Prosecutions) for the respondent. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 17 April 2003. The following judgment of the court was delivered. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14550520\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 VON DOUSSA, KEITH AND FRENCH JJ. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 INTRODUCTION \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9778270\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In 1994 Napolioni Dawai was appoin ted to the Chiefly Office of Tui Nadi. That appointment gave rise to lengthy litigation. It was unsuccessfully challenged in judicial review proceedings in 1995. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, by consent, granted leave to apply for}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6576189\charrsid2324252 judicial review, declared the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 appointment invalid and required the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission to conduct an inquiry into the rightful holder of the title. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9778270\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 A Native Lands Commissioner ruled in October 1997 that Mr Dawai was the rightf ul Tui Nadi. However, that decision was quashed by a judgment of Townley J on 16 March 2000. There is no current occupant of the office. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx576\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8806998 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In the meantime, the present petitione}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6576189\charrsid2324252 rs in April 1997 filed private}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 complaints alleging that Mr Dawai and two others had sworn false affidavits in the first round of judicial review proceedings in 1995. This was said to be}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 contrary to s 117 of the Penal Code which prohibits false sworn statements in}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 judicial proceedings. These prosecutions were taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in December 1997 in the exercise of her constitu}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 tional powers. She entered a noll}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 e prosequi terminating each of the prosecutions. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The petitioners applied to Fatiaki J for leave to issue judicial review proceedings against the decision of the DPP}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 That leave was granted in July 1998 after substantial debate about whether the DPP could be subject to judicial review. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of Fatiaki J. In so doing it held that s 117 does not apply to the swearing of affidavits. The}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 petitioners now seek special leave to appeal to this court. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 For the reasons which follow, we have granted special leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal itself. The case raises some important questions about f}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 the o peration of the High Court Rules in relation to the grant of leave to issue judicial review proceedings, the scope of judicial review of decisions of the DPP and whether s 117 of the Penal Code applies to the false swearing of affidavits. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5616\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5923778 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The petitioners both come from the Narewa village at Nadi. The petitioner, Levai Matalulu, describes himself as a member of Mataqali Natogo, a traditional warrior of the Vanua of Nadi entrusted, as part of his customary duties, with the protection of the c}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11081921\charrsid2324252 ustomary office of Tui Nadi.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The petitioner, Navitalai Rasolosolo, describes himself as a member of Matagali Vunaniu of the Yasuva Sila, a traditional sp}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8806998\charrsid2324252 okesman and herald of the Tui }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Nadi. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11011866 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11011866\charrsid2324252 \par The or}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 igins of their petition for special leave to appeal to this court lie in a dispute about the appointment, in 1994, of Napolioni Naulia Naquqi Dawai to the Chiefly Office of Tui Nadi. The appointment was made on 30 November 1994 by the endorsement of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs on the advice of the Roka Tui Ba. Another claimant for the office, Ratu lsireli Rokomatu applied to the High Court at Lautoka for leave to issue judicial review proceedings in respect of the appointment decision. The named respo ndents were the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission, the Permanent Secretary of Fijian Affairs, the Native Land Trust Board, the Attorn}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11081921\charrsid2324252 ey General of Fiji and Napolioni}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Dawai, That application was refused}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 by Lyons J in the High Court on 4 December 1995. An appeal against that decision was lodged by Ratu Rokomatu and on 6 February 1997 a consent order allowing the appeal was made in the following terms: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1. By consent the appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Lyons delivered on 4th December 1995 is allowed.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2. Appellant is given leave pursuant to Ord 52 r 3 to apply for judicial review of a purported decision of the first respondent dated 30th November 1994 endorsing the advice of the Roka }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 Tui }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15345123\charrsid2324252 Ba that the 5}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 th respondent be installed as the Turaqa Tui Nadi. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 3. By consent the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 following declarations and ord}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ers are made on the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 f appellant's application for judicial review: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11011866 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) The 1st respondent has made no valid decision in law as the holder of the title of the Turaqa Tui Nadi. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) The 1st respondent's l etter of 30th November 1994 does not constitute a decision of the 1st respondent under the Native Lands Act Cap 133.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (c) The 1st respondent take immediate steps to conduct an inquiry as to the rightful holder of the title of Turaqa Tui Nadi pursuant to s 17 of the Native Lands Act Cap 133. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (d) No further payment be made by the 3rd respondent to the 5th respondent or to any other person in respect of lease moneys due and payable to the holder of the title Turaqa }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11081921\charrsid2324252 Tui Nadi until the decision is}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 made pursuant to s 17 of the Act. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (e) No order as to costs. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11011866 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5511236 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (f) Liberty to apply to the High }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 Court is reserved to any party.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11011866 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5511236\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Following}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11081921\charrsid2324252 this decision, the petitioners,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 on 22 April 1997, filed a private complaint against Napolioni Dawai alleging that, on 17 March 1995, he committed an act of perjury under s 117(1) and (3) of the Penal Code (Cap 17). The complaint was parti}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3036211\charrsid2324252 cularised in a document headed \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Charge}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3036211\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . The}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15345123\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 part iculars alleged in substance that Dawai had sworn an affidavit before a Commissioner of Oaths knowing full well that the said affidavit was false and that it was being used in judicial review proceedings before the High Court of Fiji in Action Number HBJ0 02 of 1992. A summons was issued to Dawai on the same day. Similar complaints were made against Tevita Maqu and Nemia Vunimakadra Vainitova. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15345123\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The complaints came before the Magistrates' Court at Suva on 26 May 1997 but the court adjourned or stayed the pros ecutions pending the decision of the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission about the Tui Nadi title. The commission was not due to meet until 13 September 1997. In the meantime counsel for the three accused wrote to the office of the DPP on 5 August}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15345123\charrsid2324252 1997 requesting that the DPP \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 take immediate steps to stop all of the abovementioned proceedings, either by entering nolle prosequi or in othe}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15345123\charrsid2324252 r manner deemed appropriate ...\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . It was submitted that there was no realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest for the prosecutions to be terminated. The DPP's office wrote to the petitioners' solicitors on 14}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 August 1997 asking that they indicate what was the evidential basis f}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15345123\charrsid2324252 or the charges and whether the }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 matter had been referred to the police for investigation. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15345123\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The charges again came before the Magistrates' Court on 14}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 August but the magistrate adjourned them as he thought it desirable that they be further amended and particularised. The charges were amended on 20 August. The amended charge against Dawai now set out eight counts of perjury and a statement of offence for each. The particulars in each case identified the allegedly false statements contained in the affidavit of 17 March 1995. Similar detailed particulars of allegedly false sta tements were set out in amended charges relating to Maqu and Vainitovu. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx720\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par The petitioners' solicitors, on 12 September 1997, wrote to the DPP seeking f}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 a copy of the representations made by the solicitors for the accused. This was provided on }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 1}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 October 1997. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5923778 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 On 4 October 1997, a Native Lands Commissioner appointed to inquire into the Tui Nadi dispute ruled that Napolioni Dawi was the rightful Tui Nadi in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Vanua of Nadi. This decision was ultimately overturned b y Townley J on 16 March}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2000}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Rokomatu Namulo v Native Lands and}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Fisheries Commission}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (HBJ 0021 of 1997L, unreported). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx3168\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 On 23 October 1997, the petitioners' solicitors made a submission to the DPP that the findings of the Native Lands Commissioner had no b earing on the charges. They forwarded statements of six prosecution witnesses to the DPP on 24 October 1997. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par The prosecutions }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 again came on for m}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11935160\charrsid2324252 ention in the Suva Magistrates\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Court on 29 October 1997. Counsel for the DPP then informed the court that the DPP's office was considering representations from the legal representatives of the petitioners and the accused to determine whether the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 prosecutions should proceed. Further correspondence from the petitioners'}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 solicitors was sent to the DPP on 6 and 17 November 1997 urging that the prosecutions be allowed to proceed. The DPP replied to the letter of 6 November by a letter dated 11 November. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 On or about 3 December 1997, th}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 e DPP decided to take over the}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 prosecutions and to enter a nolle prosequi in relation to them. The DPP's office wrote to the petitioners' solicitors on 10 December 1997 setting out its reasons for deciding to enter a nolle prosequi. The DPP was said to have been guided by prosecution g uidelines which had been disclosed. In reviewing the charges before the court and the evidence, the DPP concluded that there was no prima facie case against any of the accused. The decision, it was said, was arrived at on the basis of a number of binding decisions that statements made for the purpose of judicial proceedings and referred to in s 117 of the Penal Code did not extend to affidavits sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths for the purpose of civil proceedings. The Commissioner of Oaths, it was said, was not a person authorised to record and authenticate statements contained in the affidavit. And the deponent in such circumstances was not a person lawfully sworn as a witness. On this ground alone it was the view of the DPP that this was an appropriat e case to enter a nolle prosequi. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The DPP's letter went on to set out further bases for its decision as follows: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5923778 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8858906\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 However, and in addition we considered the nature of number of charges put forward to support them. It was apparent that a number of these ch arges were based purely on statements of opinions, as opposed to statements of facts; and an assignment consisting merely of a request to crave leave to refer to another affidavit. These in our view could hardly in law be regarded as forming a proper basi s of any criminal charge. Again to continue would have been improper and may have amounted to an e abuse of the criminal process. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5328\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\tx5328\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5923778 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 There were also charges which assigned averments by one of the accused person that the proper basis in which to determine the rightful titleholder was by way of senior blood lineage. These were matters that were extensively examined, by the Native Land Commission of Inquiry}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 convened to determine this matter whose findings did not support the allegations, and further because of th e continuing litigation were matters properly before the Civil Courts. Again, to continue would have constituted an abuse of criminal process. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5923778 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 We had accordingly in the exercise of the DPP's constitutional powers opined that the proceedings against the 3 accused persons had to be discontinued}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4194870\charrsid2324252 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 However, we can also advise that if there are other conduct that in your opinion are worthy of investigation, we recommend that you refer your complaint to the P}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8858906\charrsid2324252 olice for proper investigation.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5923778\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Notwithstanding the nolle prosequis, the magistrate refused to discharge the accused and terminate the prosecutions. The DPP applied to the High Court under s 323 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4194870\charrsid2324252 of the Criminal Procedure Code. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 By that provision the court was empowered to call for and exa mine the record of any proceedings before any Magistrates' Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any sentence, finding or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such co urt}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4194870\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 On 21 January 1998 the Chief Justice upheld the DPP's submission that the accused should be discharged. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1601886\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In the meantime, on 19 December 1997 the petitioners applied to the High}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1601886\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Court for leave, under Ord 53 r 3(2) of the High Court Rules to apply for judicial review of the DPP 's decision of 10 December. The relief ultimately sought was by way of certiorari and declarations that the decision was `unreasonable taking into account all the circumstances of the case and as such illegal}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4194870\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 and that the DPP had taken into account irrelevant considerations. The grounds for review relied upon in the High Court application were: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1601886\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1601886 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4327307\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1601886\charrsid2324252 That the decision by the 1}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 st and 2nd respondent to enter a nolle prosequi against the private prosecutions commenced by the applicant is unreasonable in law and as such ultra vi}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4194870\charrsid2324252 r}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 es as the 1st and 2nd respondent had failed to take into account relevant considerations, took into account extraneous considerations, had failed to exercise good faith and is arbitrary. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1601886 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1601886\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1601886 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) That the 1st and 2nd respondent had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice as it had made a pre}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 determination in arriving at its decision to enter a Nolle Prosequi and that its decision is tainted with bias. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1601886 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1601886\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1601886 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4327307\charrsid2324252 (c) The 1}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 st and 2nd respondent in deciding to enter a nolle prosequi had failed to exercise a discretion in accordance to law as required under s 96(4)(c) of the Constitution of Fiji. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1601886 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1601886\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1601886 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (d) That the decision of the 1st and 2nd respondent to enter a nolle prosequi was arrived at unfairly and with}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4327307\charrsid2324252 out good and legitimate reason.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par As the Court of Appeal correctly pointed out, the only proper respondent was the DPP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4194870\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The petitioner had named the office director and the then current holder of the office as respondents. \par The application for leave to issue proceedings came before Fatiaki J (as he then was) and on 16 July 1998 he granted the application for leave to issue an application for judicial review. On 4 August 1998, his honour gave leave to the DPP to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his judg}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11536344\charrsid2324252 ment. That appeal was heard on }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 3 February 1999 and on 12 February 1999 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the leave to issue an application for judicial review and made no order as to costs. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4327307\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 From that judgment the petitioners seek special leave to appeal to this court, their application having been filed on 26 March 1999. \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4327307\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The office of DPP was established by s 85 of the 1970 Constitution. Its establishment was continued by s 96 of the 1990 Constitution and s 114 of the 1997 Constitution. The particular appointment to that office prior to the 1997 Constitution was continued, as were other appointments to public offices, by s 195 of the 1997 Constitution. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8858906\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11536344 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The 1997 Constitution came into effect on 27 July 1998}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11868966\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s 193(2). At the time that Fatiaki J made his decision the 1990 Constitution was still in force. The decision of the Court of Appeal was m ade at a time when the 1997 Constitution had come into operation. That Constitution, with exceptions which are immaterial for present purposes, continued in force all wri}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 tten laws in the State of Fiji \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 as if enacted or made under or pursuant to this}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11536344\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 Constitution\rquote , and \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 all other law in the State continues in operation}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (s 195(2)(e)). The courts established by the 1990 Constitution continued in existence but the Fiji Court of Appeal was redes}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 ignated as `the Court of Appeal\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (s 195(2)(g)). \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It was provided in s 195(1)(h) of the 1997 Constitution that: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11471946 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) all proceedings in the courts established by the Constitution of 1990 that had commenced before that repeal but had not been determined continue, on and after that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10381917\charrsid2324252 repeal, as if the provisions of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 this Constitution were }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 in force at their commencement.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11536344 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The judgment of Fatiaki J was given on 16 July 1998, some 11 days before the coming into operation of the 1997 Constitution. He gave leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 4 August 1998 after it came into operation. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The substantive law governing the powers of the DPP and their amenability to judicial review is to be found, in part, in the Constitution. A question arises, which was the substantive law to be applied by the Court of Appeal and by th is court having regard to the provisio}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 ns of s 195(2)(h) of the 1997 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Constitution? Whether that question is useful depends upon whether there was any material differe}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10381917\charrsid2324252 nce between the powers of the DP}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 P as set out in the 1990 Constitution and the position as it exists now. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The relevant provision of the 1990 Constitution was s 96 which provided that there shall be a Director of Public Prosecutions whose office shall be a public office (s 96(1)). The power to a}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10381917\charrsid2324252 ppoint a DPP was vested in the J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 udicial and Legal Se rvices Commission (s 96(2)). The appointee had to be a person qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court (s 96(3)). The primary powers of the DPP were set out in s 96(4): \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11471946 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 96(4) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have power in any case in which he considers it desirable so to do}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11536344 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings before any court of law (not being a court established by a disciplinary law); \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other person or authority; and \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (c) to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10381917\charrsid2324252 any other person or authority.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11536344 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par His independence of \lquote any other person or authority\rquote was entrenched in sub}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ss 96(6) and 96(7): \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11471946 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 96(6) The powers conferred upon the Director of Public Prosecutions by paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (4) of this section shall be vested in him to the exclusion of any other person or authority: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11536344 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11471946 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Provided that, where any other person or authority has instituted criminal proceedings, nothing in this subsection shall prevent the withdrawal of those proceedings by or at the instance of that person or authority at any stage before the person against w hom the proceedings have been instituted has been charged before the court. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx720\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\tx720\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11471946 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 96(7) In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this section the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 any other person or authority.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The powers of the DPP conferred by s 96(4) were generally applicable to the appellate process by operation of s 96(8). The independence of the DPP, for which s 96(6) and (7) of the 1990 Constitution provided, was tempered by the preservation of existing accountability under the rule of law applicable to all such independent holders of public office. This was the effect of s 158: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11471946 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 158 No provision of this Constitution that any person or authority shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority in the exercise of any functions under this Constitution shall be construed as precluding a court of law from exercising jurisdiction in relation to any question whether that person or authority has p erformed those functions in accordance with this Constitution or any other law or should not perform t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 hose functions.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11471946 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11471946\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Under the 1997 Constitution the DPP is provided for in s 114. The office establ}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10381917\charrsid2324252 ished by the 1990 Constitution \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 continues in existence}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10381917\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (s 114(1)). Qualification for judicial appointment remains a prerequisite for appointment}{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 as DPP (s 114(2)). Appointment is now made by the Constitutional Offices Commission following consultation with the Attorney General (s 114(3)). The primary powers of t he DPP are set out in s 114(4) with slightly more economical wording which does not appear to have altered their substance: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 114(4) The Director of Public Prosecutions may: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) institute and conduct criminal proceedings; \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) take over criminal proceedings that have been instituted by another person or authority; and \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (c) discontinue}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 , }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 at any stage before judgment is delivered, criminal proceedings instituted or conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 or another person or authority.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 Like the 19 90 Constitution, the 1997 Constitution entrenches the independence of the office of DPP through an omnibus provision in s 170(5) which applies to a number of office holders, including the DPP, who are listed in s 169 (see s 169(d)). The language of s 170(5) is more concise than that of s 96(4) and (7) in the 1990 Constitution. It provides: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (5) In the performance of his or her duties or functions or the exercise of his or her powers, a person to whom this Part applies is not subject to direction or cont}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8224728\charrsid2324252 rol by any person or authority.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In common with the holders of certain other constitutional offices, the tenu re of the DPP during his or her term of appointment is protected. The DPP is appointed for five years (s 170(1)) and may be removed only for inability to perform the functions of his or her office or for misbehaviour (s 170(2)). \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The accountability of the DPP under the rule of law is maintained in common with that of other constitutionally independent officers by s 194(10) which is in the following terms: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx5328\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4356938\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11954607 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8224728\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 A provision of this Constitution to the effect that a person or authority is not subject to the direc tion or control of any other person or authority in the performance of functions or the exercise of powers is not to be construed as precluding a court of law from exercising jurisdiction in relation to a question whether the first mentioned person or aut hority}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11954607\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 has performed the functions or exercised the powers in accordance with this Constitution or whether that person or authority should or should not perform the fu}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11954607\charrsid2324252 nctions or exercise the powers.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11954607\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Section 156(2) establishes a Constitutional Code of Conduct for public office holders. The justiciability of that Code was not in issue before the court on this application. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11954607\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The application was conducted upon the basis that it falls to be decided by reference to the powers of the DPP under the 1990 Constitutio n. And it may be that s 195(2)(h) of the 1997 Constitution can be construed as providing for the continuance of proceedings rather than the retrospective alteration of the substantive law of the Constitution to the extent that it affects the rights and li abilities in issue. It is, however, unnecessary to determine that matter for present purposes as it was not put in issue before us. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11339847\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11339847\charrsid2324252 THE STATUTORY POWERS OF }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE DPP }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11339847\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11339847\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Section 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides in sub}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s (1): \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6847722\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6847722 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6847722\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In any criminal case and at any stage thereof before verdict or judgment, as the case may be, the Director of Public Prosecutions may enter a nolle prosequi, either by stating in court or by informing the court in writing that the Crown intends that the proc e edings shall not continue, and thereupon the accused shall be at once discharged in respect of the charge for which the nolle prosequi is entered, and if he has been committed to prison shall be released, or if on bail his recognizances shall be discharge d; but such discharge of an accused person shall not operate as a bar to any subsequent proceedings against hi}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8467070\charrsid2324252 m on account of the same facts.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6847722\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Subsection (2) is not material for present purposes. Having regard to the primary power of the DPP, conferred by the Constitution, to discontinue criminal proceedings, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code may be seen as ancillary to its exercise. It is not disputed that the power to disco ntinue encompasses the entry of a nolle prosequi. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8546870\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Also of importance is s 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for the laying of a complaint o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 f the commission of an offence \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 by any person}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 and so encompasses the init}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 iation of private prosecutions. }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 This is, however, subject to the constitutional power of the DPP to take over and discontinue such a prosecution. In that sense the DPP is empowered to regulate access to the criminal justice proce}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 ss.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 - }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE SUPREME COURT \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The present petition is a petition for special leave to appeal. Section 7(2) and (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1998 set out the criteria for granting, special leave thus: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 7(2) In relation to a criminal matter, the Supreme Court must not grant special leave to appeal unle}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 ss-}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4356938 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) a question of general legal importance is involved; \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) a substantial question of principle affecting the administration of criminal justice is involved; or \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (c) substantial and grave injustice may otherwise occur. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (3) In relation t o a civil matter (including a matter involving a constitutional question), the Supreme Court must not grant special leave t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 o appeal unless the case raises-}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) a far}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 reaching question of law; \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) a matter of great general or public importance; \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid13920060 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (c) a matter that is otherwise of substantial general interest to the a}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 dministration of civil justice.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 - }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE HIGH COURT RULES \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13920060\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 At the time that Fatiaki J made his decision granting leave to proceed to issue judicial proceedings the applicable rule, Ord 53, }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 provided in the relevant }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 parts: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12807141\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12807141 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 3(1) No application for judicial review shall be made unless the leave of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12807141\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 the court has been obtained in accordance with this rule. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12807141 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12807141\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12807141 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (5) The court shall not grant leave unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12807141\charrsid2324252 the application relates.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12807141\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The rule was amended in December 1998 but the amendment has no relevance to this case. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12807141\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE PENAL CODE \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid7372146\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Each of the complaints laid by the petitioners alleged the commission of offences under s 117 of the Penal Code (Cap 17). That section provides: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid7372146\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid7372146 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 117(1) Any person lawfully sworn as a witness in a judicial proceeding who wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true is guilty of the misdemeanour termed perjury, and is liable to imprisonmen t for seven years. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid7372146\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid7372146 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 117(2) Any person lawfully sworn as an interpreter, who wilfully in the course, or proposed course, of his duties as such, makes any misstatement or actively or by omission misinterprets any statement whether or not that statement is mat erial in any judicial proceeding is guilty of perjury and is liable to imprisonment for seven years. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid7372146\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid7372146 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 117(3) Where a statement made for the purpose of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself but is made on oath before a person authoris ed by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement and to record or authenticate the statement it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8284738 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8284738 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 117(4) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be de}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 termined by the court of trial.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Subsection (2) was inserted by Ordinance No 12 of 1969 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 and the former }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 sub}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s (2) and (3) renumbered as sub}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s (3) and (4). \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 term judicial proceeding}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 is defined in s 4 of the Penal Code thus: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8284738 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 \lquote \'93[}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 J}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 ]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 udicial proceeding\'94}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 includes any proceeding had or taken in or before any court, tribunal, commission of inquiry, or person, in which}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 evidence may be taken on oath.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8284738\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 The term \lquote judicial proceedings\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 is similarly defined in s 2 of the interpretation Act 1967 (Cap 7). \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1261430\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1965 (CAP 254) }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1261430\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1261430\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Section 31 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1965 (Cap 254) made provision for the appointment of Commissioners of Oaths and was referred to by counsel for the petitioners: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15940729\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15940729 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2111561\charrsid2324252 \lquote 31(1) The Chief J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ustice may appoint ... such and so many barristers and solicitors and other persons ... to be Commissioners for taking affidavits and declarations and receiving production of documents ... which may be necessary to be taken in respect of any proceedings in any court, and any order of a court for the attendance and examination of witnesses ... before any such Commissioners within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be enforced in the same m anner as an order to attend or be examined ... before the Court. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15940729\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15940729 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 31(2) No action shall be brought against any Commissioner in respect of any act or order performed or made by him in good faith in the execution or supposed execution of the powers or jurisdiction vested in him, but every such act or order, if in excess of such powers and jurisdiction, shall be liable to be revised, altered, amended or set aside upon application to the Court. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15940729\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15940729 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 31(3) The signature of a person when placed on a document in the exercise by that person of the powers of a Commissioner under this section shall be followed by the desc}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15940729\charrsid2324252 ription }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9642382\charrsid2324252 \'93}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15940729\charrsid2324252 Commissioner for Oaths\'94.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15940729\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The section in these terms was reproduced as s 115 in the Legal Practitioners Act 1997 which repealed the 1965 Act. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx6624\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15940729\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE JUDGMENT AT FIRST INSTANCE}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8206401\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8206401\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In the High Court, Fatiaki J identified as two issues for determination: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2974298 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9642382\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 1}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . Whether the petitioners had satisfied the requirements for the grant of leave. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2974298 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2974298 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2. Whether the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9642382\charrsid2324252 DPP's decision was reviewable.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 His Lordship referred to Ord 53 r 3 and the necessary condition that the court consider}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9642382\charrsid2324252 s}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 the applicant \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 \rquote . The petitioners\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 private prosecutions having been taken over and terminated by the DPP, he considered that they had a sufficient interest in the matter. So much was apparently conceded by the DPP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The DPP, however, contended that the decision to take over the prosecutions and to enter a nolle prosequi was not reviewable by the court. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 His Lordship referred to the powers of the DPP under s 96 of the 1990 Constitution. He accepted that the power to initiate criminal proceedings was not exclusive to the DPP and referred both to the language of the Constitution and the long}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 standing common law right to institute private prosecutions}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Gouriet v Union of Pos}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 t Off}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ice}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Workers }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1977] 3 All ER 70 at 79}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 80 (per Lord Wilberforce). The power to enter a nolle prosequi was referred to and s 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code was cited. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The constitutional guarantee of the independence of the DPP from the direction or control of any other person or authority set out in s 96(7) of the 1990 Constitution was considered as counsel for the DPP relied upon it in support of the proposition that the decision of the DPP to enter a nolle prosequi was not reviewable by a court of law. Fatiaki J, however, accepted that the section did not bar the juri sdiction of the court to determine the lawfulness of the exercise by the DPP of its powers under s 96. In this respect he referred to s 158 of the 1990 Constitution. He did not accept the limitation on judicial review for which the DPP contended, namely that the jurisdiction of the court left open by s 158 was to determine whether the DPP was exercising its power within constitutional limits. Nor did he accept the submission that outside that area of review the only remedy for abuse of power by the DPP lay i n the removal of the holder of that position from his or her office pursuant to s 131 of the 1990 Constitution. An argument for routine discretionary rejection of judicial review was also not accepted as was }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 a submission that the decision \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 being entirely administrative}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 was not to be amenable to judicial review. Fatiaki J did not set out what he considered to be the scope of judicial review in relation to decisions of the DPP}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE JUDGMENT OF THE }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 COURT OF APPEAL}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal observed that much of t he argument before Fatiaki J related to the question whether the DPP's decision to enter a nolle prosequi could be the subject of judicial review. The court observed that Fatiaki J did not go on to consider whether there was an arguable case for judicial review warranting the grant of leave. In particular, the court said that Fatiaki J was not asked by counsel appearing for the DPP whether s 117 of the Penal Code could ever apply to false statements made in affidavits which had merely been attested in the normal way by a Commissioner of Oaths. The court said that: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2974298 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 If there exists a legal reason which will prevent the charges ever succeeding, then, in our view, that legal consideration must operate to prevent leave to issue}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 judicial review being granted.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It was noted also that counsel for the DPP acknowledged in the Court of Appeal that the DPP could be subject to judicial review in most exceptional circumstances. The court added: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2974298 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2974298 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 That acknowledgement could well have been but was not made b}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 y her counsel before Fatiaki J.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2974298\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal then turned to the principles governing applications for leave to issue judicial review proceedings. It accepted as applicable the proposition which it had set out in }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Fiji}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 Airline Pilots\rquote }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Association v Permanent}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 Secretary for Labour and Industrial Relations}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (Civ App, ABU 0059/199}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 7S,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 27 February 1998, unreported) and which it quoted in its judgment in this case. There it was said: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 \lquote T}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 he basic principle is that the judge is only required to be satisfied that the material available discloses what might, on further consideration, turn out to be an arguabl}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 e case for relief.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 There was some further reference to the desirability of dispensing with the leave requirement which need not detain this court. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal then considered whether the DPP's decision was reviewable. It referred to the constitutional and statutory framework of the powers of the DPP which have been set out earlier in these reasons. It also referred to an observation in a}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 joint}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 j}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8144508\charrsid2324252 udgment of Gaudron and Gummow J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 in }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Maxwell v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1996] 1 LRC 299 that it should be accepted that certain decisions involved in the prosecution process are of their nature insusceptible of judicial review including the decision to enter a nolle prosequi (at 329}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 330). The court, however, considered that in Fiji the DPP must be answerable to judicial review because of the constitutional provision in s 158. The court then referred to a number of authorities including that of the Alberta Court of Appeal in }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Kostach v A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G of Alberta (}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1995) 128 DLR (4th) 440 at 451 in which it was said: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8541770\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8541770 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The test for review of prosecutorial discretion remains that of flagrant impropriety and it is not unreasonableness}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6758600\charrsid2324252 ...\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8541770\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court mentioned the English Court of Appeal decision in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 Raym}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ond v A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1982}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 ] }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 12 All ER 487 at 491 where it was said of the DPP: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8541770\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8541770 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Unless his decision is manifestly such that it could not be honestly and reasonably arrived at it canno}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 t, in our opinion, be impugned.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8541770\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court without expounding its own stateme}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8541770\charrsid2324252 nt of principles concluded that-}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8541770\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8541770 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 the law in Fiji is best expressed in the various authorities whi}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 ch we have cited with approval.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8541770\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court added: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13439881\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid13439881 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4279455\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 We proceed later to e xamine whether there was enough evidence even at the leave sta}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 ge to show an arguable case of \'93}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 flagrant impropriety}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 \'94}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 on the part of the DPP}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 a handy description of the rare occasions when th}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4279455\charrsid2324252 e DPP's decision is reviewable.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13439881\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal then consider ed the operation of s 117 of the Penal Code, the breach of which was said by the petitioners to constitute the offences of which they complained. The court did not accept that resolution of the question whether any prosecution reliant on that section was doomed to failure should await a full hearing: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13439881\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid13975369 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13439881\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 If there is to be a \'93}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 technical knockout}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 \'94}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ; it is far cheaper and less traumatic for all concerned that it be deli}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13439881\charrsid2324252 vered sooner rather than later.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8144508 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par The court cited decisions covering the operation of the section by Mills}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Owens CJ, in what was the Supreme Court of Fiji and is now the High Court of Fiji, in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 Lal}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 v R }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1967] 13 Fiji LR 1 and }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G v Mariappan Gounder}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1967] 13 Fiji LR 123 decided in 1967. In each case the accused was said to have made a false statement in an affidavit filed in judicial proceedings and sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths in the normal way. In each case it was held that the accused could not be convicted. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx288\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13975369\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The reasoning of Mills}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Owens CJ was reflected in a passage from the}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Lal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 case set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It may be noted that s 117 did not then include what is now s 117(2). The reasoning was to the effect that sub}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s 117(3) merely extends the operation of sub}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s 117(1) and does not create a substantive offence. The object of sub}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s 117(3) is to extend the provisions of sub} {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s (1) to a statement made by a witness for the purpose of a judicial proceeding before a person other than the tribunal itself. Evidence taken on commission would fall within the scope of sub}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s 117(3). A Commissioner of Oaths}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 is not a person authorised to \lquote record or authenticate\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 statements within the meaning of the subsecti}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12205612\charrsid2324252 on. Nor can the deponent to an }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 affidavit be said to }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13905031\charrsid2324252 be \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6578605\charrsid2324252 lawfully sworn as a witness\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12205612\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal found it quite impossible to fault the reasoning of Mills}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10236887\charrsid2324252 Owens CJ in decisions \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 which have stood unchallenged in this country for over thirty years}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10236887\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . The court acknowledged the conse}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10236887\charrsid2324252 quences of this reasoning that \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 a person cannot be prosecuted for making a blatantly false statement in an affidavit sworn in the normal way}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10236887\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10236887\charrsid2324252 It described that situation as \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 anomalous}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10236887\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 but said it had been the law in Fiji since 1967. The court recommended urgent consideration be given to legislative change to rectify this gap in the law. The DPP referred in the Court of Appeal to s 120 of the Penal Code, which creates the offence of perverting the course of justice, but the availability of that provision was not relevant to the coverage of s 117}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6578605\charrsid2324252 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court conc}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3952783\charrsid2324252 luded that there was therefore \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 an impassable roadblock}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3952783\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 in the way of the private prosecutions commenced by the applicants. This was a sufficient basis to allow the appeal. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6578605\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal went on to consider whether, s 117 apart, there was a sufficient arguable case for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. There}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3952783\charrsid2324252 was, it found, no evidence of \lquote flagrant impropriety\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 on the part of the DPP}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15223610\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The first applicant's affidavi}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8325889\charrsid2324252 t exhibited letters which were \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 replete with assertion and suspicion but short on hard fact}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3952783\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . The reasons given in the letter of 10 Decem}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6506766\charrsid2324252 ber from the DPP's office were \lquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 reasonable in the public interest}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3952783\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 : \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6578605\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 As the letter states many of the allegedly false statements in the charges are statements of belief about entitlement to office and about customary processes and rituals. These assertions might or might not be objectively correct. But in an emotionally ch arged situation such as a contested claim to an important chiefly title it would be hard to characterise such an assertion as blatantly and subjectively fa}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10430483\charrsid2324252 lse, as distinct from mistaken.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15223610\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15223610 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court said that the DPP saw the dispute as one over claims to a chiefly title which had been fully ventilated before the appropriate tribunal with subsequent attempts to challenge the Tribunal in the courts. The Court of Appeal said: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15223610\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9253563 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13523519\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10430483\charrsid2324252 The DPP probably saw little merit in the use of the criminal law to relitigate deeply held claims between rival factions. Certainly her assessment of the public interest was not }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13523519\charrsid2324252 a flagrant misuse of her power.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10430483\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10430483 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10430483\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15223610 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 So the court held that not only were the prosecutions doomed to failure because of the proper construction of s 117, but none of the limited bases upon which the decision of the DPP could be challenged had been shown to exist in arguable form. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15223610\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15223610\charrsid2324252 T}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 HE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15223610\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It is unne}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11818308\charrsid2324252 cessary to set out in full the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 grounds of the petition. They do not in terms address the criteria under s 7 of the Supreme Court Act 1998 for special leave. The questions to which they give rise are as follows: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11818308\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11818308 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1. What is the function of the judges of the High Court in determining whet her leave should be granted under Ord 53 to issue judicial review proceedings and the function of the Court of Appeal on appeal therefrom (grounds 2(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi)). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11818308 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11818308\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11818308 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2. Whether, and to what extent, the decision of the DPP to enter a nolle proseq ui is susceptible to judicial review (ground 2(vii)). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11818308 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11818308\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11818308 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 3. Whether s 117 of the Penal Code applies to the swearing of an affidavit before a Commissioner of Oaths (grounds 2(i) and (ii)). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15223610 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11818308\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 A further ground which asserts that the judges who sat on the Court of Appeal should have disqualified themselves as they made the consent order of 6 February 1997 has no merit and was not pressed. \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 WHETHER SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11818308\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court was satisfied at the hearing of the petition that special leave to appeal should be granted. It so ordered and argument proceeded on the substantive appeal}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The petitioners are hereinafter referred to as the appellants. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10780002\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The petition for special leave arose out of a proceeding in which the appellants sought judicial review of the DPP's decision to enter a nolle prosequi on a private prosecution for a criminal offence. There}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8978481\charrsid2324252 is a question whether it is a \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 criminal matter}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8978481\charrsid2324252 \rquote or a \lquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 civil matter}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8978481\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 for the purp oses of s 7 of the Supreme Court Act 1998. In our opinion the better view is that the matter, involving review in civil proceedings of the exercise of the powers of a public officer, is best regarded as a civil matter. The threshold for the grant of speci a l leave in criminal matters is lower than in civil matters because the liberty of the subject may be in issue. It is undesirable to encourage fragmentation of the criminal process by placing civil proceedings for judicial review of decisions made in conne ction with that process on the same footing. The court therefore applied to this petition for special leave the criteria applicable to civil matters under s 7(3). \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10780002\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10780002 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The grant of special leave was warranted. The operation of Ord 53 and the}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 criteria for the gr ant of leave to issue judicial review proceedings are matters of substantial general interest to the administration of civil justice. The availability of judicial review in connection with the prosecutorial discretion of the DPP and its interaction with t he leave requirement under Ord 53 is similarly a matter of substantial general interest in the administration of civil}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10780002\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 justice. It may also be seen as a matter of great general or public importance having regard to its potential for impinging on the operation of the criminal justice system. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15747986 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10780002\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The somewhat narrower question relating to the construction of s 117 and its application to the swearing of false affidavits is also of substantial general interest to the administration of the civil justice system. The swearing of affidavi}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 ts by parties and witnesses in }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 judicial proceedings is an indispensable incident of the civil justice system. As the Court of Appeal acknowledged, the construction of s 117 which it accepted left a gap in the law which required urgent a ttention. The question raised by the construction of s 117 is }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 also properly characterised as \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 a matter of great general or public importance}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The court has considered the application of the criteria for the grant of special leave in this case with some p articularity. Petitioners for special leave should ensure that when they frame their petitions, they do so with care. The Supreme Court of Fiji is not a court in which decisions of the Court of Appeal will be routinely reviewed. The requirement for specia l leave is to be taken seriously. It will not be granted lightly. Too low a standard for its grant would undermine the authority of the Court of Appeal and distract this court from its role as the final appellate body by burdening it with appeals that do n ot raise matters of general importance or principle or,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 in the criminal jurisdiction, \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 substantial and grave injustice}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 LEAVE TO ISSUE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10578791\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Order 53 of the High Court Rules reflects the provisions of the former Ord 53 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court which was repealed in 2000 and replaced with what is now called Pt 54: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 udicial Review. That rule still provides for a leave requirement for the issue of judicial review proceedings although it now uses the term }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 permiss}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid615694\charrsid2324252 ion}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid615694\charrsid2324252 instead of \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 leave}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid615694\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . It is unnecessary to set out the full text of Ord 53 here. It provides for an}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid615694\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 application for leave to be made ex parte, although it may be heard inter partes, and to be supported by an affidavit verifying the facts relied upon (Ord 53 r 3(2)). The structure of the rule requires that the party seeking leave to issue judicial review proceedings demonstrate that that party has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. This is a standing requirement. It i s a necessary condition for the grant of leave. It is not a sufficient condition. The judge to whom the application is made must then exercise a discretion whether or not to grant the leave. The grant of leave is not an automatic consequence of the applic ant's satisfaction of the sufficient interest requirement. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid615694\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The discretion to grant leave is not to be limited by the formulation of unduly prescriptive rules about how it is to be exercised. Its purpose is the same as that of Pt 54 of the English Rules, described in the }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Supreme Court Practice}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 2002 p}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1158, }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3417681\charrsid2324252 as-}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3417681\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3417681 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3417681\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 to eliminate at an early stage claims which are hopeless, frivolous or a vexatious and to ensure that a claim only proceeds to a substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there i}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3417681\charrsid2324252 s a case fit for consideration.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3417681\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 This reflects the stated purpose of Ord 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in its earlier form which was closer to the form of Ord 53 of the High Court Rules}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 see Supreme Court Practice 1991 p 823. In }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 IRC v National Federation of Self}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Employed }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8413753\charrsid2324252 and Small Bus}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 inesses Ltd }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1981] 2 All ER 93 at 105, Lord Diplock described the purpose of the former Ord 53 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8413753\charrsid2324252 as designed to-}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8413753 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8413753\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8413753 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8413753\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 prevent the time of the court being wasted by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative error and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending even }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8413753\charrsid2324252 though misconceived.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12345120\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Counsel for the appellants submitted, in effect, that the grant of leave was not the occasion for the resolution of important questions of law involved in the application. There is much merit in that contention. The resolution of an important question of law which ma y lie at the threshold of an application for judicial review is best dealt with in the judicial review proceedings. Where convenient to do so, the court may hear and determine questions of law or}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12345120\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 fact as separate or preliminary questions}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Ord 33 r 3. Where the decision of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 the court on a separate question substantially disposes of the cause or matter, the whole proceeding may be dismissed. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12345120\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The leave proceedings in this case were conducted inter partes before Fatiaki J who heard substantial argument on the question of the reviewability of the DPP's decision to enter a nolle prosequi. That is not to criticise the procedure followed at first instance. The question of the reviewability of the}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 DPP's decision was closely connected to the question whether leave should be granted. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12345120\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In the Court of Appeal, the focus was upon the construction of s 117 as a threshold legal question. The court justified its decision to determine the proper constructio}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 n of s 117 upon the basis that \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 if there is to be a "technical knock}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 out"; it is far cheaper and less traumatic}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 for all concerned that it be }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 delivered sooner rather than later'. To the extent that this statement would justify the resolution of important questions of law on applications for leave under Ord 53, we have some reserv}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 ations about it. If there is a \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 technical knock}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 out}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2909626\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 it may, according to the circumstances of the particular case, be better resolved by the separate hearing and determination process under Ord 33 and even then only where there is some real saving of time and resources to be effected. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12345120\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The fact that the Court of Appeal heard and determined the s 117 issue was in part a product of the particular circumstances of this case. The proposed proceedings would have impinged upon a decision of t he DPP of such a kind that, for powerful considerations of law and public policy discussed below,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 judicial review is not lightly entertained. The DPP having terminated the prosecution in part on the basis that there was no liability}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5122208\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 under s 117, there}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12345120\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 was no other forum to test that view which of itself, as we have observed, raises a matter of general importance. The court acknowledges the very special circumstances which brought about the course of decision}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 making in this case but would wish to emphasise t hat it should not be taken as a model for the way in which most applications for leave under Ord 53 or appeals from decisions made under that rule should be conducted. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid12345120\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The judge granting leave to issue judicial review proceedings has a discretion once a s ufficient interest is shown by the applicant. That discretion must be informed by the evident purpose of Ord 53. It is not an occasion for a trial of issues in the proposed proceedings. That having been said, the judge considering the grant of leave is en titled to have regard to a variety of factors relevant to the purpose of the rule. These include: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2782145\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1. Whether the proposed application is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2782145\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2. Whether the application discloses arguable grounds for review based upon facts supported by affidavit. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2782145\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 3. Whether the application would serve any useful purpose, eg whether the question has become moot. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2782145\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 4. Whether there is an obvious alternative remedy such as administrative review or appeal on the merits which has not been exhausted by the applicant. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2782145\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2782145 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 5. Whether a restrictive approach to the grant}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11888511\charrsid2324252 of leave is warranted because}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 the decision is one which is amenable to only limited judicial review. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid2782145\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The question whether there are arguable grounds for review is not to be determined by the resolution of contestable issues of law. But where a proposed application for judicial review depends upon grounds involving assertions of law or fact which are manifestly untenable, then leave should not be granted. The submission was made on behalf of the appellants that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11888511\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 leave to issue judicial review proceeding}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11888511\charrsid2324252 s should be granted wherever a \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 potentially arguable case}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11888511\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 is disclosed. We do not understand the full significance of the term}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11888511\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 potentially arguable}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid11888511\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . It cannot be used to justify the grant of leave to issue proceedings upon a speculative basis which it is hoped the interlocutory processes of the court may strengthen. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 There are cases in which a restrictive approach}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 to the grant of leave may be }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 w arranted because of the limited grounds upon which review is available in such cases and public policy considerations which should constrain the incidence of such review. This is particularly applicable to decisions made by prosecuting authorities in the a dministration of the criminal justice system. The decision to prosecute or not prosecute a particular case is likely to be affected by a wide variety of considerations. Other decisions of a governmental character may fall into the same category where they involve questions of policy, the allocation of resources and the determination of priorities for government action including the delivery of services. That is not to say that such decisions are immune from review where they are made unlawfully or in exces s of power. It does say that an application for leave to seek judicial review of such decisions may require close scrutiny by a judge before leave is given. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 THE REVIEWABILITY OF THE DPP'S DECISION}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Although it had been contended before Fatiaki J that a de cision of the DPP to enter a nolle prosequi is not amenable to judicial review upon any ground whatsoever, that contention was not maintained before the Court of Appeal or before this court. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The Court of Appeal, as was observed earlier, r}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4660916\charrsid2324252 eferred to a number of }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 authorities which, it said,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4660916\charrsid2324252 best expressed the law in Fiji. }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It did not essay its own}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 summary of the principles upon which it thought review would be availab}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4660916\charrsid2324252 le beyond the observation that \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 flagrant impropriety}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4660916\charrsid2324252 \rquote was \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 a handy description of the rare occ asions when the DPP's decision is reviewable}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4660916\charrsid2324252 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . That term had the support of the Alberta Court of Appeal in } {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4660916\charrsid2324252 Kostu}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ch v A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G of Alberta}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1995) 128 DLR (4th) 440 at 450 where it was said: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid8534174 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14170280\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Assuming that the Court has the power to review prosecutorial discretion, that power will be exercised only in cases where there has been flagrant impropriety in the exerci}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 se of prosecutorial discretion.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8534174\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The term appears to have originated in the judgment of the Manitoba Court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4785540\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 of Appeal in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v Baldeistone}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1983) 8 CCC (3d) 532 at 539. Examples of what}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 might constitute flagrant impropriety were suggested in a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Quebec (A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 - }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G) v Chartrand}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1987) 40 CCC (3d) 270}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4785540\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 at 271. These included breach of the law, abuse of power thr ough corruption in favour of the accused or prejudice against the victim or the law creating the offence. Obvious unreasonableness in the decision was also suggested as amounting to such impropriety. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4785540\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The last mentioned example, however, was doubted by the Alberta Court of Appeal (}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14170280\charrsid2324252 Kostu}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ch v A}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 G of Alberta}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1995) 128 DLR (4th) 440 at 451). }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13784272\charrsid2324252 \par \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14170280\charrsid2324252 \lquote Flagrant impropriety\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 was clearly designed to indicate that courts in Canada should set a high threshold before entertaining applications for the judicial review of prosecutorial discretion. The underlying policy primarily}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 related to separation of powers considerations. This was the expressed basis of the reasoning in }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v Balderstone }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 cited in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14170280\charrsid2324252 Kostu}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ch}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . It was also the basis upon which the Supreme Court of Canada in }{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Krieger v Law Society of Alberta}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [2003]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13786135\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 3 LRC 249 at [49] itself adopted the flagrant impropriety test saying: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13786135\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4588335 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4588335\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Within the core of prosecutorial discretion, the court cannot interfere except in such circumstances of flagrant impropriety or in actions for}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14170280\charrsid2324252 \'93}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 m}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4588335\charrsid2324252 alicious prosecution}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14170280\charrsid2324252 \'94.\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4588335\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In arriving at that conclusion the justices cited with approval the observation of L'Heureux}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4588335\charrsid2324252 Dube J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v Power}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1994] 1 SCR 601 at 621}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 623: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4588335 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4588335\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4588335 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4588335\charrsid2324252 \lquote I}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 t is manifest that, as a matter of principle and policy, courts should not interfere with prosecutorial discretion. This appears clearly to stem from the respect of separation}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4588335\charrsid2324252 of powers and the rule of law.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par The term `flagrant impropriety' seems to have acquired the status of a term of art in this area of Canadian public law. We have reservations about its utility as descriptive of more than a visceral response to official misconduct}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15621103\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 which may vary according to the sensibilities of the judge who is asked t o accept its application to a particular case. \par \par The court was helpfully referred, by counsel for the DPP, to a large number of cases in a variety of jurisdictions including New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Northern Ireland, the United St ates, Hong Kong, Samoa, Guyana, Barbados and the European Court of Human Rights. Apart from an obiter st}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15621103\charrsid2324252 atement by Gaudron and Gummow JJ}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Maxwell v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1996}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14485815\charrsid2324252 ]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15621103\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1 LRC 299 at 329}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 330, there is now little or no support for the proposition that such decisions a re completely beyond the reach of judicial review albeit the occasions on which it may successfully be invoked are likely to be rare because of the width of the power and the mix of factors that may legitimately be taken into account in its exercise. This proposition is well reflected in a passage from the judgment of Powell J in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Wayte v United States}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1985) 470 US 598 at 607}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 608 cited by counsel for the respondent: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9465180\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9465180 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9465180\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the government's overall enforcement plan are not readi ly susceptible to the kind of analysis the cou}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9465180\charrsid2324252 rts are competent to undertake }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 judicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor's motives and decision}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 making to outside inquiry, and may e}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the government's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properl y hesitant to examine the decision whether}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9465180\charrsid2324252 to prosecute.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9465180\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It is not necessary for present purposes to explore exhaustively the circumstances in which the occasions for judic}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14485815\charrsid2324252 ial review of a prosecutorial }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 decision may arise. It is sufficient, in our opinion, in cases involving the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to apply established principles of judicial review. These would have proper regard to the great width of the DPP's discretion and the polycen tric character of official decision}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 making in such matters including policy and public interest considerations which are not susceptible of judicial review because it is with}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14485815\charrsid2324252 in neither the constitutional }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 function nor the practical competence of the courts to assess their merits. This approach subsumes concerns about separation of powers. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10168058\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The decisions of the DPP challenged in this case were made under powers conferred by the 1990 Constitution. Springing directly from a written constitution they are not to b e treated as a}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14485815\charrsid2324252 modern formulation of ancient}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 prerogative authority. They must be exercised within constitutional limits. It is not necessary for present purpose to explore those limits in full under either the 1990 or 1997 Constitutions. It may be accepted , however, that a purported exercise of power would be reviewable if it were made: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10168058\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10168058 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1. In excess of the DPP's constitutional or statutory grants of power}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13923215\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 such as an attempt to institute proceedings in a court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13923215\charrsid2324252 established by a disciplinary }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 law (see s 96(4)(a)). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10168058 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10168058\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10168058 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 2. When, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, the DPP could be shown to have acted under the direction or control of another person or}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10168058\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 authority and to have failed to exerci}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13923215\charrsid2324252 se his or her own independent }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 discretion}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13923215\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 if the DPP were to act upon a political instruction the decision could be amenable to review. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10168058\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10168058 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 3. In bad faith, for example, dishonesty. An example would arise if a prosecution were commenced or discontinued in consideration of the payment of a bribe.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4750592\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4750592 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4750592\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10168058 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 4. In abuse of the proces s of the court in which it was instituted, although the proper forum for review of that action would ordinarily be the court involved. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10168058\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10168058 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 5. Where the DPP has fettered his or her discretion by a rigid policy}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9256293\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 eg one that precludes prosecution of a specific class of offences. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1533144\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1533144 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1533144\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 There may be other circumstances not precisely covered by the above in which judicial review of a prosecutorial discretion would be available. But contentions that the power has been exercised for improper purposes not amounting to bad faith, by reference to irrelevant considerations or without regard to relevant considerations or otherwise unreasonably, are unlike l y to be vindicated because of the width of the considerations to which the DPP may properly have regard in instituting or discontinuing proceedings. Nor is it easy to conceive of situations in which such decisions would be reviewable for want of natural j ustice. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10168058\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 A mistaken view of the law upon which a proposed prosecution is based will not constitute a ground for judicial review in connection with the institution of a prosecution. The appropriate forum for determining the correctness of the prosecutor's vi ew is the court in which the prosecution is commenced. Where a complaint is particularised in such a way as to raise the question of law for determination it may be struck out or where an indictment does the same, the indictment may be quashed. Such an er ror of law does not fall within the category of an error of law which goes to the DPP's powers to prosecute.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1533144\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Where the DPP decides to discontinue a prosecution on the basis of a mistaken view of the law then, by definition, there is no court proceeding wi thin which that view can be tested and it may be a stronger case for review can be made. In }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v DPP, ex p Kebeline}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [2000]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid14553878\charrsid2324252 3 LRC }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 377 at 420, Lord Steyn stated, as a general principle, that in the case of a decision not to prosecute, judicial review is available. His Lordship cited }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 R v DPP}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 , }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ex p C}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8016622\charrsid2324252 [1995] 1 Cr App R 136 observing that \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 in such }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8016622\charrsid2324252 a case there is no other remedy\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 . That, h owever, was a case in which the Crown prosecutor, acting on behalf of the DPP in making the decision not to prosecute, had failed to comply with the settled policy of the DPP set out in a Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the DPP pursuant to s 10 of th e Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It was nevertheless accepted by the Divisional Court in that case that the power to review a decision of the DPP not to prosecute was to be sparingly exercised. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8016622\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Again, an error of law which informs a decision not to cont inue with a prosecution is not an error which goes to the scope of the DPP's power or vitiates the proper exercise of the DPP's discretion. Decisions to initiate or not to initiate or to discontinue prosecutions may be based on judgments}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 about the prospects of success on questions of law and fact. The DPP is}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 empowered to make such judgments even though they maybe wrong on the law or mistaken on the facts. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8016622\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In the present case the DPP based her decision in part upon a construction of s 117 of the Penal Code which has been settled in Fiji for over thirty years. The Court of Appeal upheld it. As it happens, and for reasons which we express below, we consider that construction to be erroneous and that s 117 does apply to the false swearing of affidavits. There w as, however, no credible basis for suggesting that in coming to that view the DPP acted other than in good faith. The decision could not have been reviewable on that ground. There was no other viable ground for review advanced by the appellants in their a p plication before Fatiaki J and it would have been quite proper in the circumstances to refuse leave. In this case there were additional reasons for the DPP's decision to discontinue the prosecution. These, as set out in the letter of 10 December 1997, wer e based upon factual aspects of the allegations made. They included the character of the statements in the affidavits which were said to be false, their prior examination by }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3302745\charrsid2324252 the Native Lands Commission of I}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 nquiry and the involvement of the civil courts. It is nothing to the point that the Native Lands Commission decision was subsequently quashed. It was a factor which the DPP was entitled to take into account at the time the decision to discontinue the prosecutions was made. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid8016622\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 For these reasons there was a pr oper basis for refusing leave to seek judicial review. The Court of Appeal took the view that leave should have been refused, albeit it did so in reliance upon an erroneous construction of s 117. In our opinion the fact that the DPP's view and that of the court on the point was wrong does not give rise to a ground which would have justified the grant of leave to seek judicial review in the first place. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Counsel for the appellants complained that by being refused leave to proceed they were deprived of the oppo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3302745\charrsid2324252 rtunity, through discovery and}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 interrogatories, of examining the full context of, and reasons behind, the DPP's decision. But the interlocutory processes of the court are not to be used to determine whether an applicant has a case. There must be grounds for suspecting that the DPP has acted in a way that attracts judicial review before the powers of the court can be called in aid. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid3302745\charrsid2324252 It will be apparent, however, }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 that the appeal would have been dismissed whate ver view this court had taken of s 117 so that strictly speaking it is not necessary to address the question of its construction. But, as it has been argued before us and raises a question of considerable importance to the administration of justice genera lly in Fiji, we propose to state our view about it. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 SECTION 117 OF THE PENAL CODE \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The terms of s 117 have been set out earlier in these reasons. It is perhaps not surprising that the submissions made on behalf of the DPP in support of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on this issue were not particularly elaborate and did not evince great enthusiasm for the construction which has been so long held in Fiji. In our view, and with the greatest of respect to the long}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 standing decision of Mills}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Owens CJ, those decisions are in error and the error should not be allowed to stand. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It is quite correct to say, as was said in the case of }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 La1 v R}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 [1967] 13 Fiji LR}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 1, that what is now s 117(3) extends, by its interpretive operation, the scope of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 s 117(1). Mills}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Owens CJ saw its operation as thereby extended to a statement made by a witness for the purpose of a judicial proceeding before some person other than the Tribunal itself. He cited the case of evidence taken out of court on commission before a co}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid5589790\charrsid2324252 mmissioner or an examiner. He }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 distinguished their position from that of a Commissioner of Oaths taking an affidavit on the basis that the Commissioner of Oaths is not a person authorised to record or authenticate the statements taken. \par We were not referred to any statutory provision regulating the form of affidavits or the manner in which they are to be taken before a Commissioner of Oaths. The Legal Practitioners Act provisions}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4470239\charrsid2324252 provide little assistance on }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 this point. The Oaths Act contains no relevant section. There is, however, a rule of court, Ord 41 of the High Court Rules, which makes plain the duty of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 a Commissioner of Oaths to be satisfied that a deponent understands the contents of an affidavit. So Ord 41 r 3(1) provides: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Where it appears to the person administering the oath that the deponent is illiterate or blind, he}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 must certify in the jurat that-}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) the affidavit was read in his presence to the deponent, }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) the deponent seemed perfectly to understand it, and \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (c) the deponent made his signature or mark in his presence; \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid9053154 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 and the affidavit shall not be used in evidence without such a certificate unless the Court is otherwise satisfied that it was read to and appeared to be perfectly understood by the deponent. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (2) Whe re it appears to the person administering the oath that the deponent does not understand the English language he must certify in the jurat that: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9053154\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (a) the affidavit was read, explained and interpreted, either by himself}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 or through the medium of a sworn and named interpreter in his presence, to the deponent in a specified language with which the deponent was familiar, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (b) the deponent seemed perfectly to understand it, and \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (c) the deponent made his signature or mark in his presence; \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4470239 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 and the affidavit shall not be used in evidence without such a g certificate.' \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The necessary independence of the Commissioner of Oaths is emphasised in Ord 41 r 8 which provides: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1118293 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 No affidavit shall be sufficient if sworn before the barrister and solicitor of the party on whose behalf the affidavit is to be used or before any agent, partner, or clerk o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 f that barrister and solicitor.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 It is useful in this connection to recall the observation of Kay J in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Bourke v}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Davis}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 (1889) 44 Ch}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4470239\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 D 110 at 126: \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1118293 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 The comm issioner's duty before he administers the oath is to satisfy}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 himself that the witness does thoroughly understand what he is going to}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 I swear to; and he should not be satisfied on this point by anyone but the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 witness himself. For this reason it has been t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid674633\charrsid2324252 he rule since the time of Lord H}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 ardwicke that the Court does not accept an affidavit sworn before the solicitor in the cause, nor his clerk, although he may be a commissioner ... The Court requires the security of an independent commissioner, and it is obv ious that he ought not to take only the statement of a solicitor in the cause that the witness knows what is in the affidavit. Where, as in this case, many of the witnesses are in a humble position of life, I do not see how the commissioner can be satisfi ed without having the affidavits read over in his presence. I}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid674633\charrsid2324252 f an educated man says to him, \lquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 I have read over this affidavit, to the truth of which I am going to swear, and all the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid674633\charrsid2324252 statements in it are accurate,\rquote }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 that m}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 ay in some cases be sufficient.\rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10098266 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Agai nst this background it may properly be said that a Commissioner of Oaths before whom an affidavit is sworn authenticates the statements made in it within the meaning of s 117. So much being accepted, all the other elements of s 117 are satisfied where a p erson swears an affidavit for the purpose of use as evidence in a judicial processing. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between a party who swears an affidavit of his or her evidence or any other witness in the proposed proceedings. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 In our view the provisions of s 117 extend at least to affidavits of evidence sworn for use in judicial proceedings whether or not the affidavits are ultimately relied upon. The question wheth}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid674633\charrsid2324252 er affidavits of discovery and}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 answers to interrogatories fall into that category, can await another day. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 For these reasons, we are of the view that the Court of Appeal and Mills}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15747986\charrsid2324252 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 Owens CJ were incorrect in their construction of s 117 as not applicable to the swearing of affidavits. So saying, we consider it desirable that the st atute law be clear and respectfully suggest that some express provision be made for the false swearing of affidavits. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 CONCLUSION \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1118293\charrsid2324252 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid4079415\charrsid2324252 For the reasons expressed earlier, the appeal will be dismissed. In our opinion, however, having regard to the way in which t he issues have fallen out, there should be no order for costs. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid674633\charrsid2324252 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid674633 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid674633\charrsid2324252 THE SUPREME COURT. \par }}