{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f131\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f132\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f134\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f135\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f136\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f137\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f138\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f139\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \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;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1265938\rsid3686880 \rsid5591292\rsid5906257\rsid5910395\rsid6236703\rsid7097698\rsid8327008\rsid8606970\rsid11016957\rsid12855404\rsid13006013\rsid14748874}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info {\title /srv/samba/hardcopy/HARDCOPY JUDGMENT/03 Publishing/01 Macro//01 Incoming/2008-02-27 SC CAV 0003. 2007 Jione v The State.rtf}{\author sam_f}{\doccomm written by /usr/local/bin/process-documents.pl [Perl RTF::Writer v1.11]}{\operator hamilton_l} {\creatim\yr2010\mo6\dy21\hr14\min35}{\revtim\yr2010\mo11\dy22\hr15\min52}{\version7}{\edmins71}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3191}{\nofchars18191}{\*\company scims}{\nofcharsws21340}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale150\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot12855404 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3686880 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3686880 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3686880 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3686880 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3686880 \chpgn \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid12855404 IN THE SUPREME COURT, FIJI ISLANDS}{\b\insrsid12855404\charrsid12855404 \par }{\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid12855404 AT SUVA \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid12855404 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid7097698 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO}{\insrsid12855404 . CAV 0003 O}{\insrsid3686880 F 2007}{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid3686880 (Fiji Court of Criminal Appeal AAU}{\insrsid7097698 0094 of 2005S}{\insrsid3686880 ) \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid12855404 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid3686880 BETWEEN: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid12855404 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\b\insrsid7097698 FORAETE EPINISI }{\b\insrsid3686880 JIONE}{\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid3686880 Petitioner \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid12855404 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid3686880 AND: \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\insrsid12855404 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid12855404 THE STATE \par }{\insrsid3686880 Respondent \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid7097698 Coram}{\insrsid3686880 :}{\insrsid12855404 The H}{\insrsid3686880 on Justice Keith Mason, Judge of the Supreme Court }{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid3686880 The Hon}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 Justice Robert French, Judge of the Supreme Court }{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid3686880 The Hon Justice Mark}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 Weinberg, Judge of the Supreme Court \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par Hearing}{\insrsid3686880 :}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 Wednesday, 20}{\super\insrsid7097698\charrsid7097698 th}{\insrsid7097698 February 20}{\insrsid3686880 08, Suva \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid3686880 Counsel:}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 Petitioner in person \par A Prasad for the Respondent \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid3686880 Date of Judgment:}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid7097698 Wednesday, 27}{\super\insrsid7097698\charrsid7097698 th}{\insrsid7097698 }{\insrsid3686880 February 2008, Suva \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12855404 {\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid12855404 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12855404 \par 1. }{\insrsid3686880 The petitioner was convicted in the High Court at Suva on five counts of}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 fraudulent falsification of accounts, and one count of larceny as a}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 servant. He was sentenced on each count to concurrent terms of}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 imprisonment of three years. He was granted leave by the Court of Appeal}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 to appeal against both conviction and sentence, but his appeal was}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 dismissed. \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid12855404 Factual background \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par 2. The offences}{\insrsid3686880 of which the petitioner was convicted concerned}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 allegations that, while an employee of the Westpac Banking Corporation,}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 he made four false credit entries in accounts which had been opened with}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 the Bank, and destroyed a deposit slip for an amount}{\insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 which he had received on behalf of the Bank.}{ \insrsid12855404 }{\insrsid3686880 The offences were said to}{\insrsid12855404 have been}{\insrsid3686880 committed at the Nabua branch of the Bank over two days, on 12}{\insrsid12855404 and}{\insrsid3686880 13 March 1997. Together they involved a total sum of $172,318.08. \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid11016957 3. In}{\insrsid3686880 addition, the petitioner was convicted of a sixth count, }{\insrsid12855404 namely larceny}{\insrsid3686880 as a servant. That count involved an amount of $179,153.27. }{\insrsid12855404 The prosecution}{ \insrsid3686880 case was that the purpose of the falsification }{\insrsid12855404 or destruction}{\insrsid3686880 of the banking records the subject of the five counts }{\insrsid12855404 of falsification}{\insrsid3686880 of accounts was to conceal the theft of the last }{\insrsid12855404 mentioned sum}{\insrsid3686880 . \par }{\insrsid12855404 \par }{\insrsid11016957 4. After}{\insrsid3686880 concerns arose in relation to these transactions, the }{\insrsid11016957 petitioner was}{\insrsid7097698 interviewed by Gregory Lemme}{\insrsid3686880 , the Bank's investigations manager, }{\insrsid11016957 in August}{\insrsid3686880 1997. There were extensive interviews conducted over eight days. \par }{\insrsid11016957 \par 5. The}{\insrsid3686880 records of these interviews were tendered at the trial, and }{\insrsid11016957 their admission}{\insrsid3686880 into evidence was the subject of one ground of appeal. }{\insrsid11016957 It should}{\insrsid3686880 be noted that the petitioner was interviewed by the police }{\insrsid11016957 some six}{\insrsid3686880 years later, in 2003, but the product of that interview did not }{\insrsid11016957 find its}{\insrsid3686880 way into evidence at the trial. \par }{\insrsid11016957 \par 6. The}{\insrsid3686880 Court of Appeal observed that the Bank interviews amounted to }{\insrsid11016957 a complete}{\insrsid3686880 confession by the petitioner of all of the counts }{\insrsid11016957 subsequently alleged}{\insrsid3686880 against him. Moreover, they were followed by three }{\insrsid11016957 letters, purportedly}{\insrsid3686880 written by the petitioner, in which he admitted to }{\insrsid11016957 the misappropriation}{\insrsid3686880 of the funds, and offered to make restitution. One }{\insrsid11016957 of these}{\insrsid3686880 letters was physically delivered by the petitioner to Peter}{\insrsid11016957 Capell, a bank}{\insrsid3686880 officer, so Mr Capell testified, along with a bank cheque}{\insrsid11016957 for $500.}{\insrsid3686880 \par }{\insrsid11016957 \par 7. The}{\insrsid3686880 petitioner was not legally represented at his trial. }{\insrsid11016957 Nonetheless, he}{\insrsid3686880 }{\insrsid11016957 defended himself}{\insrsid3686880 with some skill, and objected to the admissibility of the }{ \insrsid11016957 Bank interviews}{\insrsid3686880 .}{\insrsid11016957 }{\insrsid3686880 The trial judge conducted a }{\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid3686880 voir dire}{\insrsid3686880 .}{\insrsid11016957 }{\insrsid3686880 She concluded }{\insrsid11016957 that the}{\insrsid3686880 copies which were tendered in place of the lost originals }{\insrsid11016957 were accurate}{\insrsid3686880 copies. She further concluded that the interviews had }{\insrsid11016957 been conducted}{\insrsid3686880 fairly, and that the confessions made were all }{\insrsid11016957 obtained voluntarily}{\insrsid3686880 . \par }{\insrsid11016957 \par 8. The}{\insrsid3686880 petitioner denied having made any of the fraudulent entries }{\insrsid11016957 that formed}{\insrsid3686880 the subject of the counts, or having destroyed the deposit }{\insrsid11016957 slip. He}{\insrsid3686880 denied having stolen any of the Bank's money. He told the }{\insrsid11016957 assessors that}{\insrsid3686880 the various admissions that he was said to have made in the }{\insrsid11016957 course of}{\insrsid3686880 the Bank interviews were of no weight because they had been made }{\insrsid11016957 as a}{\insrsid3686880 result of coercion and verbal abuse.}{\insrsid11016957 }{\insrsid3686880 He said that the signatures }{\insrsid11016957 on the}{\insrsid3686880 interview adoption records were not his, and that the contents }{\insrsid11016957 of those}{\insrsid3686880 interviews were either untrue, or had been fabricated. }{\insrsid11016957 He similarly}{\insrsid3686880 suggested that the post interview letters were not written }{\insrsid11016957 by him}{\insrsid3686880 , and that his signature on those letters had been forged. \par }{\insrsid11016957 \par 9. The}{\insrsid3686880 Court of Appeal observed that the prosecution of this case }{\insrsid11016957 had been}{\insrsid3686880 anything but expeditious. As will be seen, that is if anything }{\insrsid11016957 an understatement}{\insrsid3686880 . By no later than August 1997, the Bank had in }{\insrsid11016957 its possession}{\insrsid3686880 a series of full and complete signed confessions, }{\insrsid11016957 containing}{\insrsid3686880 remarkably detailed account of wha}{\insrsid11016957 t the petitioner had done. It appears}{\insrsid3686880 that sometime between then, and early 1998, the police }{\insrsid11016957 were contacted}{\insrsid3686880 and became involved. A series of witness statements, }{\insrsid11016957 taken from}{ \insrsid3686880 various Bank customers, and going back as far as May 1998, }{\insrsid11016957 were tendered}{\insrsid3686880 as exhibits during the trial. Plainly the police }{\insrsid11016957 were investigating}{\insrsid3686880 this matter for some considerable time before }{\insrsid11016957 those statements}{\insrsid3686880 were obtained. \par }{\insrsid11016957 \par }{\insrsid3686880 10}{\insrsid13006013 . There}{\insrsid3686880 is nothing in the record which explains why it was not }{\insrsid13006013 until January}{\insrsid3686880 2003 that the petitioner was formally charged with }{\insrsid13006013 these offences }{\insrsid3686880 . Thereafter, the matter took its normal course through }{\insrsid13006013 the Magistrates}{\insrsid3686880 Court, culminating, with the making of an order on 14}{\insrsid7097698 }{\insrsid3686880 November 2003, with the petitioner's consent, for trial in the }{\insrsid13006013 High Court}{\insrsid3686880 .}{\insrsid11016957 \par \par 11. The}{\insrsid3686880 matter was first mentioned in the High Court on 5 December 2003.A trial date of 19 April 2004 was fixed. That date was later }{\insrsid13006013 adjourned to}{\insrsid3686880 12 July 2004, and then again adjourned to 4 October 2004. }{\insrsid13006013 The petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 claimed that this last adjournment had been ordered }{\insrsid13006013 without his}{\insrsid3686880 knowledge or consent. He blamed his counsel for this, and elected }{\insrsid13006013 to terminate}{\insrsid3686880 his counsel's retainer. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 12}{\insrsid13006013 . The}{\insrsid3686880 matter was next mentioned on 27 July 2004. On that day }{\insrsid13006013 the petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 indicated that he had approached a particular counsel with }{\insrsid13006013 a view} {\insrsid3686880 to being represented by}{\insrsid7097698 him. 1t was mentioned again on 6 }{\insrsid3686880 September}{\insrsid7097698 }{\insrsid3686880 2004. The petitioner informed the Court that it was still his }{\insrsid13006013 intention to}{ \insrsid3686880 be represented at his trial. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 13}{\insrsid13006013 . On}{\insrsid3686880 29 October 2004 the trial was once again adjourned, this time }{\insrsid13006013 by consent}{\insrsid3686880 , to 5 July 2005. The petitioner, who had still not, by }{\insrsid13006013 that stage}{\insrsid3686880 , retained new counsel, was advised in clear terms to obtain le}{\insrsid13006013 gal advice.}{\insrsid3686880 \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 14}{\insrsid13006013 . On}{\insrsid3686880 21 January 2005 there was a further mention of the matter. On }{\insrsid13006013 this occasion}{\insrsid3686880 , }{\insrsid13006013 the petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 advised that he would be representing himself. He }{\insrsid13006013 informed the}{\insrsid3686880 Court that he had no objection to the Bank interviews, and }{\insrsid13006013 no criticisms}{\insrsid3686880 of the later police interviews. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 15}{\insrsid13006013 . On}{\insrsid3686880 21 February 2005 the prosecution advised that the }{\insrsid13006013 handwritten copies}{\insrsid3686880 of the police interviews could not now he located. The Court }{\insrsid13006013 was also}{\insrsid3686880 told that the interviewing officers had each migrated. The }{\insrsid13006013 trial date}{\insrsid3686880 of 5 July 2005 was vacated, and a new date of 19 July 2005 fixed. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par 1}{\insrsid3686880 6}{\insrsid13006013 . That}{\insrsid3686880 trial date was subsequently vacated.}{\insrsid13006013 }{\insrsid3686880 On 15 August 2005 }{\insrsid13006013 the matter}{\insrsid3686880 was transferred to Justice Shameem,}{ \insrsid13006013 }{\insrsid3686880 Several days later Justice}{\insrsid13006013 Shameem enquired of}{\insrsid3686880 the parties whether the matter could be listed }{\insrsid13006013 for trial}{\insrsid3686880 , at short notice, the following Monday. The prosecution }{\insrsid13006013 indicated that}{\insrsid3686880 they would need more time, as the case officer was on leave, and }{\insrsid13006013 a number}{\insrsid3686880 of the main witnesses were overseas. The petitioner, }{\insrsid13006013 however, made}{\insrsid3686880 it clear that he wanted the matter set down for trial. He said }{\insrsid13006013 that the}{\insrsid3686880 lengthy delays had caused both him and his family stress. He }{\insrsid13006013 asked for}{\insrsid3686880 a date before October 2005, as he wished to migrate. Justice Shameem}{\insrsid13006013 fixed a hearing}{\insrsid3686880 date for 24 Ju ly 2006, but listed the matter for }{\insrsid13006013 mention on}{\insrsid3686880 30 September 2005 to see if it could be brought on sooner. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 17}{\insrsid13006013 . Ultimately}{\insrsid3686880 , and with the consent of both parties Justice Shameem}{\insrsid13006013 fixed the}{\insrsid3686880 trial for 11 October 2005. At a pre\_trial hearing }{\insrsid13006013 the petitioner }{\insrsid3686880 who was still unrepresented, indicated for the first }{\insrsid13006013 time that}{\insrsid3686880 he did not consent to the tender of the police }{\insrsid13006013 interviews. Moreover}{\insrsid3686880 , he said he disputed the evidence of Mr Lemme who had }{\insrsid13006013 conducted the}{\insrsid3686880 Bank interviews. He nominated a series of prosecution }{\insrsid13006013 witnesses whom}{\insrsid3686880 he wished to cross\_ examine, and identified those others }{\insrsid13006013 whose statements}{\insrsid3686880 could be read without objection. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 18}{\insrsid13006013 . On}{\insrsid3686880 18 October 2005 the trial finally commenced before Justice Shameem}{\insrsid13006013 and the}{\insrsid3686880 assessors. It concluded on 31 October 2005. \par \par }{\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid3686880 Court of Appeal \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 19}{\insrsid13006013 . The}{\insrsid3686880 petitioner filed a large number of grounds of appeal. The }{\insrsid13006013 Court of}{\insrsid3686880 Appeal observed that some were repetitious, and indicated that }{\insrsid13006013 it would}{\insrsid3686880 deal with them in a manner which reflected their subst}{\insrsid13006013 ance}{\insrsid3686880 . \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 20}{\insrsid13006013 . Their}{\insrsid3686880 Lordships rejected the petitioner's claim that he had not been}{\insrsid13006013 g}{\insrsid3686880 iven a fair }{\insrsid13006013 trial. Broadly}{\insrsid3686880 speaking, the petitioner argued that he had been denied }{\insrsid13006013 legal representation}{\insrsid3686880 contrary }{\insrsid13006013 to }{\insrsid3686880 s28 (1) (d) of the Constitution.}{\insrsid13006013 However, there}{\insrsid3686880 was nothing to indicate that he could not afford the services of }{\insrsid13006013 a lawyer}{\insrsid3686880 .}{\insrsid13006013 }{\insrsid3686880 Rather, he had made a conscious decision to conduct his defence}{\insrsid13006013 himself}{ \insrsid3686880 . }{\insrsid13006013 H}{\insrsid3686880 e had done so in the face of strong advice from more than }{\insrsid13006013 one member}{\insrsid3686880 of the High Court, given during the course of various }{\insrsid13006013 mentions, that}{ \insrsid3686880 he should obtain a lawyer. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par 2}{\insrsid3686880 1}{\insrsid13006013 . Their}{\insrsid3686880 Lordships also rejected the petitioner's challenge to }{\insrsid13006013 his conviction}{\insrsid3686880 based }{\insrsid13006013 on delay}{\insrsid3686880 . They described the delays in the trial as unfortunate, }{\insrsid13006013 but observed}{\insrsid3686880 that not all }{\insrsid13006013 were due}{\insrsid3686880 to the}{\insrsid8606970 prosecution. They added at [18]}{\insrsid3686880 : \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid13006013 {\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 '}{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 I}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 n may be accepted that delay is most undesirable because of }{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 the possibility}{\b\i\insrsid8606970 of the lo}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 ss of documents and of witnesses being }{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 unavailable. Additionally}{ \b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 , it can have an effect on memory and cause undue stress to}{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 an accused}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 , over whose head serious criminal charges hang. The }{ \b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 appellant suggested}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 that the present was a case where the delay was of such }{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 an order}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 that it denied him a fair trial.}{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 }{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 The several respects which }{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 were identified}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 are addressed later in these reasons. Neither }{\b\i\insrsid13006013\charrsid13006013 individually, nor}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid13006013 in combination, did they, in our view, have that result." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 22}{\insrsid13006013 . The}{\insrsid3686880 petitioner submitted that the trial judge had }{\insrsid13006013 interjected, interrupted}{\insrsid3686880 and disrupted the proceedings when he tried to cross\_}{\insrsid13006013 examine prosecution}{\insrsid3686880 witnesses and complained that she displayed bias. He did }{\insrsid13006013 not identify}{\insrsid3686880 any passages in which this alleged conduct occurred. The }{\insrsid13006013 Court of}{\insrsid3686880 Appeal read the transcript and concluded that Justice Shameem }{\insrsid13006013 had conducted}{\insrsid3686880 the trial with impeccable fairness. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 23}{\insrsid13006013 . The}{\insrsid3686880 next ground upon which the petitioner relied related to }{\insrsid13006013 the admission}{\insrsid3686880 of the Bank interviews. Put simply, he claimed that he }{\insrsid13006013 had been}{ \insrsid3686880 subjected to threats and humiliation to the point where }{\insrsid13006013 any admissions}{\insrsid3686880 made were involuntary. He asserted that he had given a }{\insrsid13006013 number of}{\insrsid3686880 untrue answers during the interviews so that they were }{\insrsid13006013 all unreliable}{\insrsid3686880 . \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 24}{\insrsid13006013 . Justice}{\insrsid3686880 Shameem heard evidence from Mr Lemme who denied that }{\insrsid13006013 the petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 had been mistreated in any way. She accepted him as }{\insrsid13006013 a truthful}{ \insrsid3686880 witness. She found that the petitioner had been treated }{\insrsid13006013 fairly, warned}{\insrsid3686880 that he was not obliged to answer any questions, and given }{\insrsid13006013 ample opportunity}{\insrsid3686880 for breaks. The petitioner complained that the }{\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid3686880 voir dire}{\insrsid3686880 }{\insrsid13006013 had been}{\insrsid3686880 conducted hastily, and treated as a mere formality by the }{\insrsid13006013 trial judge}{ \insrsid3686880 . The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no basis }{\insrsid13006013 whatever for}{\insrsid3686880 that submission. As their Lordships observed, the failure of }{\insrsid13006013 the petitioner's}{\insrsid3686880 challenge to the admissibility of the Bank }{\insrsid13006013 interviews was}{\insrsid3686880 to a large extent determinative of the appeal. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 25}{\insrsid13006013 . Nonetheless}{\insrsid3686880 , their Lordships dealt with other grounds, including }{\insrsid13006013 an alleged}{\insrsid3686880 error on the part of the trial judge in receiving photocopies }{\insrsid13006013 of the}{\insrsid3686880 Bank interviews, and of other bank documents. They explained }{\insrsid13006013 at [}{\insrsid3686880 32] \_ [36] why there was no substance to that complaint. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 26}{\insrsid5591292 . They}{\insrsid3686880 also dealt with a complaint regarding the reception of }{\insrsid5591292 the evidence}{\insrsid3686880 of Mr Capell, who was called by the prosecution only after }{\insrsid5591292 it emerged} {\insrsid3686880 that the petitioner denied having been responsible for the }{\insrsid5591292 three letters}{\insrsid3686880 addressed to the Bank in which he acknowledged his guilt. Mr}{\insrsid5591292 Capell's evidence}{\insrsid3686880 was significa nt in that regard because he said }{\insrsid5591292 that the}{\insrsid3686880 last of these letters had been given to him by the }{\insrsid5591292 petitioner, together}{\insrsid3686880 with a cheque for $500. That linked the petitioner to }{ \insrsid5591292 the letter}{\insrsid3686880 , and undercut his defence that it had been forged. The }{\insrsid5591292 petitioner complained}{\insrsid3686880 of late disclosure of Mr Capell's witness statement. However,}{\insrsid5591292 as the Court }{ \insrsid3686880 of Appeal observed, that point had no merit given }{\insrsid13006013 the petitioner's}{\insrsid3686880 sudden, and }{\insrsid13006013 unforeseen}{\insrsid3686880 , allegation that the letters were }{\insrsid13006013 all forged}{ \insrsid3686880 , first raised during the trial. \par }{\insrsid13006013 \par }{\insrsid3686880 27}{\insrsid5591292 .}{\insrsid8606970 }{\insrsid3686880 There was also an attempt by the petitioner to rely upon }{\insrsid5591292 fresh evidence}{\insrsid3686880 , a Travel History document, before the Court of Appeal. }{ \insrsid5591292 This document}{\insrsid3686880 was said to cast doubt upon Mr Capell's evidence that he was }{\insrsid5591292 in Suva}{\insrsid3686880 in December 1997, at the time he was given the third letter by }{\insrsid5591292 the petitioner}{ \insrsid3686880 , as he claimed.}{\insrsid5591292 }{\insrsid3686880 The Court of Appeal concluded that }{\insrsid5591292 the document}{\insrsid3686880 was insufficiently cogent to warrant being received for }{\insrsid5591292 that purpose}{ \insrsid3686880 . \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 28}{\insrsid5591292 . There}{\insrsid3686880 are also further complaints about disclosure sought during }{\insrsid5591292 the trial}{\insrsid3686880 , and bringing the trial date forward, without the }{\insrsid5591292 petitioner's consent}{\insrsid3686880 . \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 29}{\insrsid5591292 . More}{\insrsid3686880 importantly, the petitioner submitted that he had }{\insrsid5591292 suffered significant}{\insrsid3686880 prejudice by reason of the eight year delay that }{\insrsid5591292 had occurred}{ \insrsid3686880 between the time the alleged offences were committed, and }{\insrsid5591292 the date}{\insrsid3686880 he was finally brought to trial. The Court of Appeal }{\insrsid5591292 readily accepted}{\insrsid3686880 that delay can affect the fairness of a trial.}{\insrsid5591292 }{\insrsid3686880 Witnesses }{\insrsid5591292 may die}{\insrsid3686880 or their memories may fade. Important documents may be lost. In }{\insrsid5591292 an appropriate}{\insrsid3686880 case, where real prejudice to an accused can }{\insrsid5591292 be demonstrated}{\insrsid3686880 , a court may consider the remedy of a permanent stay. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 30}{\insrsid5591292 .}{\insrsid8606970 }{\insrsid3686880 The petitioner claimed prejudice through the loss of the }{\insrsid5591292 original Bank}{\insrsid3686880 interviews and other original documents. The Court of }{\insrsid5591292 Appeal rejected}{\insrsid3686880 that contention. Even the petitioner accepted that where }{\insrsid5591292 such original}{\insrsid3686880 documents had been lost, but copies were available, }{\insrsid5591292 those copies}{\insrsid3686880 were accurate. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 31}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 petitioner next claimed prejudice through impairment of memory }{\insrsid5591292 of certain}{\insrsid3686880 witnesses. The Court of Appeal examined that claim with }{\insrsid5591292 some care }{\insrsid3686880 , and concluded that any lapses of memory by the witnesses }{\insrsid5591292 in question}{\insrsid3686880 related to matters that were not material. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 32}{\insrsid5591292 . More}{\insrsid3686880 specifically, the petitioner argued that he was prejudiced }{\insrsid5591292 by the}{\insrsid3686880 absence of the "master log", a document from which relevant }{\insrsid5591292 computer records}{\insrsid3686880 were derived, and what were described as the Von }{\insrsid5591292 account records}{\insrsid3686880 , records }{\insrsid5591292 relating}{\insrsid3686880 to a particular account about which }{\insrsid5591292 the petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 had been questioned during his Bank interviews. In }{\insrsid5591292 addition, the}{\insrsid3686880 petitioner claimed that he had been prejudiced by some }{\insrsid5591292 uncertainty as}{\insrsid3686880 to whether a computer generated statement }{\insrsid5591292 relating}{\insrsid3686880 to what was }{\insrsid5591292 known as}{\insrsid3686880 the Front Office Cash Account (FOCA), bearing an effective date of 12}{\insrsid5910395 March}{ \insrsid3686880 1997, and disclosing an account balance of $404,831.08, which }{\insrsid5591292 was tendered}{\insrsid3686880 by the prosecution, was the final statement for that day. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 33}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 Court of Appeal dealt with these submissions by noting that }{\insrsid5591292 the petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 had not identified how any of the allegedly missing }{\insrsid5591292 documents could}{\insrsid3686880 have assisted his case. As the Court observed, the }{\insrsid5591292 Bank interviews}{\insrsid3686880 , together with additional evidence from Bank witnesses }{\insrsid5591292 and supporting}{\insrsid3686880 documents, made out the prosecution case. The Court would }{\insrsid5591292 not act}{\insrsid3686880 on speculation that, in some fashion, something might have }{\insrsid5591292 been drummed}{\insrsid3686880 up, from the absent documents, to throw doubt on what }{\insrsid5591292 was otherwise}{\insrsid3686880 a very strong prosecution case. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 34}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 Court of Appeal then dealt with the FOCA statement.}{\insrsid5591292 Their Lordships}{\insrsid3686880 were conscious of the fact that Mr Lemme said at the }{\insrsid5591292 trial that}{ \insrsid3686880 this account was used as an internal clearing account and }{\insrsid5591292 was expected}{\insrsid3686880 to have a nil balance at the end of each day.}{\insrsid5591292 }{\insrsid3686880 The }{\insrsid5591292 petitioner sought}{ \insrsid3686880 to argue that if it had a positive balance, as the }{\insrsid5591292 computer statement}{\insrsid3686880 which was tendered suggested, that meant the Bank must }{\insrsid5591292 have misappropriated}{\insrsid3686880 some of its customers' money. It followed, so }{\insrsid5591292 he submitted}{\insrsid3686880 , that it was possible that whatever he may have done, }{\insrsid5591292 he himself}{\insrsid3686880 did not steal any money. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 35}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 Court of Appeal rejected that submission. Their Lordships said: \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 "}{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 [}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 6}{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 0}{ \b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 ]... We do not see why that necessarily follows. It depends}{\b\i\insrsid5591292 }{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 ent}{\b\i\insrsid5591292 i}{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 rely}{ \b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 on whether fictitious or false entries had been made, }{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 the existence}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 of which the appellant acknowledges in his interviews. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 [61}{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 ]}{\b\i\insrsid5910395 }{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 In any event, the appellant had the benefit of any uncertainty }{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 in this}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 respect since it was a matter that was explored in Mr Lemme's}{\b\i\insrsid5591292 }{ \b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 evidence}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 in chief and in cross\_examination. The explanation which he}{\b\i\insrsid8606970 g}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 ave was that while the FOCA account should result in a nil balance }{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 at the}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 end of the day, his investigation showed that the appellant }{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 was capable}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 of maintaining the internal accounts without a zero balance, }{\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 and did}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 so to cancel his misappropriation. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\b\i\insrsid5591292\charrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 [62]}{\b\i\insrsid5910395 }{\b\i\insrsid8606970 This ground is not made good}{\b\i\insrsid1265938 ".}{\b\i\insrsid3686880\charrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 36}{\insrsid5591292 . There}{\insrsid3686880 were numerous other points taken before the Court of }{\insrsid5591292 Appeal. However}{\insrsid3686880 , they were not pressed by the petitioner in his }{\insrsid5591292 written submissions} {\insrsid3686880 to this Court, and accordingly we will say nothing }{\insrsid5591292 further about}{\insrsid3686880 }{\insrsid5591292 them. }{\insrsid5910395 \par }{\b\insrsid5910395\charrsid5910395 \par }{\b\insrsid5591292\charrsid5910395 The}{\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid5910395 petition to this Court \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 37}{\insrsid5591292 . Before}{\insrsid3686880 this Court the petitioner raised essentially three grounds }{\insrsid5591292 of appeal}{\insrsid3686880 .}{\insrsid5591292 }{\insrsid3686880 He contended: \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\insrsid3686880 (a)\tab that he had been prejudiced by a combination of late }{\insrsid5591292 disclosures, the}{\insrsid3686880 delay in bringing him to trial, and the failure to ensure that }{\insrsid5591292 he was}{\insrsid3686880 legally represented;}{\insrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\insrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\insrsid3686880 (b)\tab the evidence of Mr Capel}{\insrsid5591292 l}{\insrsid3686880 should not }{\insrsid5591292 have been}{\insrsid3686880 received. However, the Court of Appeal should have regarded }{\insrsid5591292 the Travel}{\insrsid3686880 History document as demonstrating conclusively that Mr Capell }{\insrsid5591292 had not}{\insrsid3686880 been in Suva at the critical date; and \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\insrsid5591292 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5591292 {\insrsid3686880 (c)\tab that the existence of surplus funds in the FOCA account }{\insrsid5591292 provided clear}{\insrsid3686880 proof that there was money rightfully belonging to }{\insrsid5591292 various customers}{\insrsid3686880 that had been misappropriated by the Bank. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 38}{\insrsid5591292 . In}{\insrsid3686880 our view, none of these grounds warrants the grant of }{\insrsid5591292 special leave}{\insrsid3686880 . The petitioner's claim to have been prejudiced by late }{\insrsid5591292 disclosure of}{ \insrsid3686880 documents does not withstand scrutiny. The record shows that in }{\insrsid5591292 the days}{\insrsid3686880 leading up to the commencement of the trial the prosecution filed }{\insrsid5591292 a series}{\insrsid3686880 of notices of additional evidence.}{\insrsid5591292 }{\insrsid3686880 These were dated 5 October}{\insrsid1265938 }{\insrsid3686880 2005, 6 October 2005, 14 October 2005, 17 October 2005, 18 October 2005}{\insrsid1265938 }{\insrsid3686880 and 25 October 2005. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 39}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 first of these notices concerned the evidence of Mr Rakesh Lal, }{\insrsid5591292 a Bank}{\insrsid3686880 employee who now occupied the position of Financial Crime }{\insrsid5591292 Analyst at }{\insrsid3686880 the Suva}{\insrsid1265938 branch. H}{\insrsid3686880 e said he was fully aware of the }{\insrsid5591292 petitioner's case}{\insrsid3686880 . }{\insrsid1265938 He}{\insrsid3686880 said that he had examined the Bank case file, and came }{\insrsid5591292 across two}{\insrsid3686880 of the letters handwritten by the petitioner to the Bank dated 3}{\insrsid1265938 }{\insrsid3686880 November}{\insrsid1265938 }{\insrsid3686880 1997 and 24 December 1997. }{\insrsid5591292 H}{ \insrsid3686880 e summarised the content of the }{\insrsid5591292 letters, and}{\insrsid3686880 indicated that he had forwarded them to the Office of the }{\insrsid5591292 Director of}{\insrsid1265938 Public Prosecutions.}{\insrsid3686880 The handwritten letters themselves were }{\insrsid5591292 appended to}{\insrsid3686880 the notice. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 40}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 notice dated 6 October 2005 appended an additional statement by}{\insrsid5591292 Mr Lal together}{\insrsid3686880 with the Banks' termination letter addressed to }{\insrsid5591292 the petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 , and his handwritten letter dated 29 August 1997 }{\insrsid5591292 admitting the}{\insrsid3686880 truth of all the allegations made against him. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 4}{\insrsid5591292 1}{\insrsid14748874 . The}{\insrsid3686880 notice dated 14 October 2005 appended a statement by a }{\insrsid5591292 police officer}{\insrsid3686880 who formally identified the Bank interviews that he had }{ \insrsid5591292 handed to}{\insrsid3686880 the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and explained }{\insrsid5591292 that the}{\insrsid3686880 originals had been misplaced and could no longer be found. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 42}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 notice dated 17 October 2005 appended an additional nine }{\insrsid5591292 page statement}{\insrsid3686880 taken by Mr Lemme from the petitioner on 21 August 1997. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 43}{\insrsid5591292 . The}{\insrsid3686880 notice dated}{\insrsid5591292 }{\insrsid3686880 18 October 2005 appended various }{\insrsid5591292 performance appraisal}{\insrsid3686880 documents }{\insrsid5591292 relating}{ \insrsid3686880 to the petitioner going back to 1993. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 44}{\insrsid5591292 .}{\insrsid6236703 }{\insrsid3686880 Finally, the notice dated 25 October 2005 contained a five }{\insrsid5906257 line statement}{\insrsid3686880 from Mr Capell in which he stated that sometime in }{\insrsid5906257 late December}{\insrsid3686880 1997 he met the petitioner at the Office of the Chief }{\insrsid5906257 Manager of}{\insrsid3686880 Westpac.}{\insrsid5591292 }{\insrsid3686880 The petitioner personally handed over the handwritten }{\insrsid5906257 letter and}{\insrsid3686880 bank cheque to which reference has already been made. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 45}{\insrsid5591292 .}{\insrsid6236703 I}{\insrsid3686880 t can readily be seen that none of these disclosures, late }{\insrsid5591292 though they}{\insrsid3686880 were, could have caused any real prejudice to the petitioner }{ \insrsid5591292 merely by}{\insrsid3686880 having been provided less than fourteen days before the }{\insrsid5591292 commencement of}{\insrsid3686880 the trial, as would normally be required. A number of them }{\insrsid5591292 were innocuous}{ \insrsid3686880 . Others would not have taken the petitioner by surprise. }{\insrsid5591292 The statement}{\insrsid3686880 of Mr Capell was provided to rebut a defence first }{\insrsid5591292 raised during}{\insrsid3686880 the course of the trial. There is nothing in this point. \par }{\insrsid5591292 \par }{\insrsid3686880 46}{\insrsid5906257 . That}{\insrsid3686880 deals also with the evidence of Mr Capell. Plainly, his }{\insrsid5906257 evidence became}{\insrsid3686880 highly relevant once the petitioner flagged his contention }{\insrsid5906257 that the}{\insrsid3686880 handwritten letters bearing his signature had been forged. }{\insrsid5906257 The petitioner}{\insrsid3686880 made no application to adduce further evidence before }{\insrsid5906257 the Court}{\insrsid3686880 of Appeal but simply handed up the Travel History document.}{\insrsid5906257 The prosecution}{\insrsid3686880 had no opportunity to test its authenticity, or carry }{\insrsid5906257 out investigations}{\insrsid3686880 into its accuracy and reliability. This point too has }{\insrsid5906257 no merit}{\insrsid3686880 . \par }{\insrsid5906257 \par }{\insrsid3686880 47}{\insrsid5906257 . Finally}{\insrsid3686880 , the petitioner's complaint regarding the existence }{\insrsid5906257 of so}{\insrsid3686880 \_called surplus funds to the FOCA account was dealt with correctly }{\insrsid5906257 by the}{ \insrsid3686880 Court of Appeal.}{\insrsid5906257 }{\insrsid3686880 It is impossible to draw from the }{\insrsid5906257 computer statement}{\insrsid3686880 dated 12 March 1997, and the fact that the account was }{\insrsid5906257 shown to}{ \insrsid3686880 be in surplus, a conclusion that the Bank itself had }{\insrsid5906257 misappropriated funds}{\insrsid3686880 from its customers. The reliability of that computer }{\insrsid5906257 statement would}{\insrsid3686880 depend }{ \insrsid5906257 entirely}{\insrsid3686880 upon whether fictitious or false entries had }{\insrsid5906257 been made}{\insrsid3686880 , the very existence of which the petitioner acknowledged in }{\insrsid5906257 the Bank}{\insrsid3686880 interviews. \par }{\insrsid5906257 \par }{\insrsid3686880 4}{\insrsid5906257 8. The}{\insrsid3686880 petitioner has not meet any of the requirements for the grant }{\insrsid5906257 of special}{\insrsid3686880 leave }{\insrsid5906257 under}{\insrsid6236703 }{\insrsid5906257 s7 (}{ \insrsid3686880 2) of the Supreme Court Act. The application }{\insrsid5906257 for special}{\insrsid3686880 leave must be refused, and the petition dismi}{\insrsid5906257 ssed.}{\insrsid3686880 \par }{\insrsid5906257 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5906257 {\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid5906257 Hon Justice Keith Mason}{\b\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 \par }{\b\ul\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 Judge of the Supreme Court \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5906257 {\b\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5906257 {\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid5906257 Hon }{\b\insrsid14748874 Justice Robert French}{\b\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 \par }{\b\ul\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 Judge of the Supreme Court \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5906257 {\b\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5906257 {\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid5906257 Hon Justice Mark We}{\b\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 inberg \par }{\b\ul\insrsid5906257\charrsid5906257 Judge of the Supreme Court \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid5906257 \par }{\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid5906257 Solicitors}{\b\insrsid5906257 :}{\b\insrsid3686880\charrsid5906257 \par }{\insrsid3686880 The Petitioner in person \par Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Suva for the Respondent \par }}