Evidence Law: Evidentiary Issues in Criminal Proceedings in Fiji

Running head: EVIDENCE LAW
Evidence Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EVIDENCE LAW
Table of Contents
Answer 1..........................................................................................................................................2
Answer 2..........................................................................................................................................8
Answer 3........................................................................................................................................10
Answer 4........................................................................................................................................11
References......................................................................................................................................13

2EVIDENCE LAW
Answer 1
In Fiji, Magistrates are empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction under the
Magistrates Courts Act, Criminal Procedure Code and any other law in force. Under chapter 4
of the Fiji Constitution, the fundamental rights and freedoms stipulated is binding upon every
branches of the State and the persons carrying out the function of a public officer as stated under
section 21(1)(a)(b) of the Constitution.
On the facts here, there are certain evidentiary issues that arose out of the proceedings
before the Magistrate court, which were recognized by the Court of Appeal, leading to acquittal
of the accused person.
Right to fair hearing within a reasonable time
The constitution entitles every person who is charged with an offence with the right to
fair trial within a reasonable time before an impartial court of law as stated under section 29(1)
(2) (3) of the Constitution. In order to determine whether the delay in conducting a fair trial is
reasonable or unreasonable, the court shall consider the factors as was held in Apatia Seru &
Anthony Stevens v The State Crim App No AAU0041 of 1999S. Such factors include length of
the delay, actions of state of defendant, reasons for delay, restrictions on institutional resources
and prejudice to the defendant (Corrin 2017).
In the given case, the accused person was detained in custody for 10 months before he
was convicted of the offence. If the conditions for delay is to be considered it can be stated that
the delay was unreasonable as the accused could have been granted bail.
Presumption of innocence

3EVIDENCE LAW
According to section 28(1) (a) of the Constitution, every person who is charged with an
offence has the right to be considered as innocent until the person is proved to be guilty
according to the law. This principle termed as ‘presumption of innocence’ is a fundament
principle in criminal law (Wigmore 2016). In Azzopardi v R [2001] 4 LRC 385 (Australia) and
in State v Johnny Albert Stephen [2010] HAC 088 before the High Court of Fiji, it was held
that the prosecution must bear the onus of proof to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond
any reasonable doubt.
As per the facts here, the court acted inconsistently with section 28(1) of the Constitution
while the accused was ordered to be kept in the custody on the ground that he is guilty until his
innocence is proved in the court. The court erred in complying with the fundamental principle of
‘presumption of innocence’ as was observed in Azzopadi and Johnny’s cases.
Right to Counsel
As per section 28 [(1) (c) (d)] of the Constitution, every person charged with an offence
must be provided with adequate facilities and time to prepare a defense. The person is also
entitled to the right to defend herself or himself either personally or through legal practitioner of
his or her choice. The person shall also be entitled to obtain the services of a legal practitioner
under the scheme for a legal aid (Gardner and Anderson 2015). This right is essential to ensure
that person charged with an offence is entitled to a fair hearing. In Suren Singh & Ors v The
State Suva High Court Cr. App. No 79 of 2000, it was held that a defendant must be informed of
his rights under section 28 [(1)(d)] and section [29(1)] of the Fiji Constitution. This right
includes the right of the defendant to have legal representation to understand the charges that
have been imposed against him or her and to be able to defend her of him against such charges.