A Petition of Appeal has been filed against the decision of High Court Judge Justice Vincent Perera to set aside the ruling of Nadi Magistrate Siromi Turaga who acquitted two people charged with Failure to Comply with Orders under the Public Health Act.
It has been filed in the Court of Appeal by law firm Vosarogo Lawyers on behalf of the appellants Ravin Rohit Lal and Shalvin Chand.
These two men who had pleaded guilty in the Nadi Magistrates Court on 10th April were acquitted by Magistrate Turaga on 15th April.
Magistrate Turaga had ruled that even though the two men had pleaded guilty, they had pleaded guilty to a charge that was bad in law and the prosecution was prosecuting the accused on a non-existent law.
Under the particulars of the charge by Police, Lal and Chand on the 9th of April, 2020 in Nadi without lawful exercise failed to comply with orders of the Prime Minister of Fiji by breaking the curfew hours, an order that was deemed necessary for the protection of public health from an infectious disease, namely Novel Coronavirus.
In his judgement on 15th April, Magistrate Turaga said the prosecution is relying on a declaration by the Prime Minister but not made by the Minister of Health pursuant to his powers set out in section (69)1 of the principal Act nor made pursuant to the Public Health [Infectious Diseases] Regulation 2020.
On 16th April, the High Court exercised its revision jurisdiction and quashed the acquittal of the Nadi Magistrates Court.
The High Court then remitted the matter back to the Nadi Magistrates Court to be dealt with by a different Magistrate and ordered that a fresh plea be taken by both Lal and Chand.
Lal and Chand intend to appeal against the revision decision on several grounds.
The first ground is "that the learned judge erred in law in making the orders that it did, to the prejudice of the Appellants without giving them the opportunity to be heard either by themselves or by their lawyers as mandatory under Section 262(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009."
They are also appealing on the ground "that the learned judge was prevented by-law under section 262(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 from exercising revision jurisdiction on an order of acquittal by the Magistrates Court and that the proper course of action was for the State to appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court, which procedure wasn't exercised."
The third ground is "that the learned trial Magistrate was correct in identifying that the charge was defectively pleaded and that no such application to amend was made by the State and as, the consequential result would have been an acquittal based on law."
Lal and Chand also want the revision judgement dated 16th April 2020 of the Suva High Court be set aside and the consequential orders therein be quashed as being manifestly unsafe, perverse and a miscarry of justice.
They also want the Court of Appeal to confirm the orders of acquittal of the Nadi Magistrates Court dated 15th April 2020.
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
