Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Journal of South Pacific Law

Alfred John H. v The State: A Comment (Case Note) [2006] JSPL 3; (2006) 10(1) Journal of South Pacific Law

ALFRED JOHN H. V THE STATE: A COMMENT^[∗]

RACHEL SUBUSOLA OLUTIMAYIN^[∗∗]

INTRODUCTION

The appellant in this case (who was unrepresented) moved the Fiji Court of Appeal to determine a very simple, important and uncommon issue. What is the proper procedure for a court to follow where an accused that appears on a multi-count indictment elects to plead guilty on some counts in the Magistrates’ Court and elects trial on other counts in the High Court? The Appeal Court held that in such cases sentencing for the counts to which he has pleaded guilty should be postponed until after he has been tried on his not guilty counts.

FACTS

The Appellant is the father of two girls E and L. E was born on 25 October 1983, and L on 20 August 1987. In October 2002 a report was lodged with the Police that the Appellant had regularly and frequently raped E with force between 1997 when she was 14 and 2002 when she was 19. It was also reported that he indecently assaulted L twice between January 2001 when she was 14, and October 2002 when she was 15. He appeared in the Lautoka Magistrates’ Court on 18 November 2002.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Magistrates’ Court

On 18 November 2002 the Appellant was charged in the Lautoka Magistrates’ Court with ten counts of rape, attempted rape and indecent assault. On 19 November 2002 he pleaded guilty to one count of rape against E in November 2002, and two counts of indecent assaults against L between January 2001 and October 2002. He pleaded not guilty to the other seven counts. The magistrate accepted his plea and severed the three accepted counts from the seven unaccepted counts. He retained the accepted counts in file number 86/06, and created a new file for the seven unaccepted counts. The accused pleaded guilty to the three accepted counts in the Magistrates Court and elected a High Court trial for the unaccepted counts. He accepted the Prosecutions’ summary of facts on the three counts. After mitigating on his own behalf, he was sentenced concurrently to two years imprisonment on each of the indecent assault charges, and three years imprisonment for the rape charge. A total of three years imprisonment was imposed on him.

High Court