Alleged ice importer remanded

A 53-year-old was remanded by the Suva Magistrates Court on Tuesday for alleged unlawful importation of illicit drugs, methamphetamine.

The case of Julien Mahendra Lal who is charged with two counts of unlawful importation of illicit drugs was transferred to the High Court in Suva by Magistrate Kashyapa Wickramasekara.

Police prosecutor Inspector Apenisa Keresoni requested the court to remand the accused as the case was serious.

It is alleged that on April 3, Lal without unlawful authority imported 382.1 grams of methamphetamine which was contained in a carton. Lal will appear in the High Court on August 15 where he will apply for bail through a legal aid lawyer. ARISHMA DEVI-NARAYAN

Judge orders retrial for robbery case

The High Court in Lautoka has ordered a retrial in the case of a man who was convicted of robbery with violence by a Magistrates Court.

Lekima Rokolisoa had appealed against his conviction and sentence before Judge Justice Sunil Sharma. He was also convicted for unlawful use of a vehicle.

His lawyer, P. Chand claimed that the magistrate had failed to consider the mitigating factor, which was his client’s time in remand.

Rokolisoa further claimed that the magistrate was harsh in sentencing when he ordered 12 months as aggravating factors. In arguing against conviction, the appellant claimed that the magistrate erred in law by allowing the prosecution to tender the caution interview as evidence without a proper trial.

In determination, Justice Sharma stated that the court having the jurisdiction to hear a matter had the discretion to proceed in the absence of the accused if the court was satisfied that the accused had been served with the summons requiring his or her attendance.

Justice Sharma said that the trial court should remind itself not to hold the absence of the accused against him or her and it’s incumbent upon the prosecution to disclose and present evidence of all relevant facts that would be favourable to the accused.

In this case the appellant was unrepresented in the Magistrates Court and prosecution did not inform the appellant of the intention to use the caution interview as evidence. However, the provision requires court to conduct trial as if the accused is present in court to defend himself.

Justice Sharma said that the court was mindful of the lapse of eight years from the date of the offences in particular the constitutional right of the appellant to have his case determined within a reasonable time.

However, when considering the seriousness of the offences committed, the strength of the prosecution case and the non-co-operative attitude of the appellant which resulted in him not appearing in court when required, absconding after being released on bail the delay could not be considered to be unfair and unreasonable.

Justice Sharma said the trial would give the appellant a chance to cross examine the state witnesses and challenge their veracity. In ordering the retrial, Justice Sharma said the appellant could use the duration of time spent as part of imprisonment as mitigation in the event the appellant is found guilty.

The case was remitted back for trial de novo before another magistrate on July 31.

He urged every effort must be made to give the case a priority hearing.

The appellant was charged in 2009 and sentenced in February 2017.