Court questions FICAC-Police transfer of Charters case

The High Court in Suva has questioned whether the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) and the Fiji Police Force were trying to circumvent the law by transferring Charlie Charters’ case to Police after the criminal proceedings had been permanently stayed.

Justice Pita Bulamainaivalu raised the questions today during an urgent application by Charters’ lawyers against Commissioner of Police Rusiate Tudravu, seeking the return of six devices seized by Police on August 7.

The matter was set for hearing when Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Tikoisuva told the court that the Office of the DPP did not understand why FICAC had transferred the matter to Police, knowing that under Section 117(8)(b) of the 2013 Constitution, the DPP could not take on criminal proceedings handled by FICAC.

Ms Tikoisuva said the reason given was that the transfer was made as part of a live investigation. She said after the stay judgment, the matter should have halted and all exhibits and evidence held by FICAC should have been returned.

Justice Bulamainaivalu raised several questions, including whether FICAC and Police were trying to circumvent the law.

Under Sections 54 and 55(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the DPP needed to be informed of any transfer of a case. The judge questioned why the DPP had not been informed.

Justice Bulamainaivalu also referred to the stay judgment, saying FICAC had not given a good reason for charging Charters, whom he described as a secondary offender.

He said that while he understood he was not the trial judge, it appeared that "they were going after a small shark to immunise the bigger shark".

The court found FICAC’s move unjust and said Police should have realised that Charters’ position was tainted because he had not been cautioned from the beginning.

Ms Tikoisuva told the court that Police had not conducted any extractions and that FICAC had already initiated criminal charges against officers accused of leaking information to Charters.

After considering the facts, the court granted the orders sought by the applicants, with no order as to costs.

The orders were made available to all parties later yesterday.

Mr Tudravu is represented by the Solicitor-General’s Office. However, lawyer Tevita Cagilaba told the court that under Section 2(d) of the 2013 Constitution, the Solicitor-General’s Office could not represent him in criminal proceedings.