These are the latest court updates I can find.
These two documents say "trial" by his name with Hon. Mr. Justice Hamza each day from Feb 12-16 and Feb 19-23. I assume that means his trial went on during that time?
https://judiciary.gov.fj/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Lautoka-High-Court-Criminal-02-12-16-2024.pdf
https://judiciary.gov.fj/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Lautoka-High-Court-Criminal-02-19-23-2024.pdf
On Feb 28, the judge issued a Voir Dire ruling:
https://judiciary.gov.fj/wp-content...-v-Bradley-Robert-Dawson-Voir-Dire-Ruling.pdf
Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I have can take a look, but it seems as though the defense was trying to get BD's interview thrown out, but the judge decided it could be admitted as evidence.
Then there is a huge time jump to this week. Looks like his case is back on the calendar. Could this be for sentencing?
https://judiciary.gov.fj/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lautoka-High-Court-Criminal-05-27-30-2024.pdf
It says "first call" and "mention" for May 28, which is this Tuesday.
Big thanks for the update
@bitesizedcrime -- much appreciated!
I find the Fiji High Court system somewhat bizarre. For example, we know from MSM linked above that in April 2023, the High Court in Lautoka granted state lawyer, Alvin Singh, time until May 2023 to finalise pretrial conference documents in the case against USA national Bradley Robert Dawson:
The matter was heard before High Court Judge, Justice Riyaz Hamza on April 5, 2023. Dawson was jointly represented by Iqbal Khan and Anil Prasad of Iqbal Khan and Associates.
The matter was adjourned to May 4, 2023 for the pretrial conference hearing and to
fix a trial date for the case.
From the weekly, criminal cause lists linked by OP, the case was presided over by Justice Riyaz Hamza, and during the week ending 16 Feb 2024, 5 days (M-F) were designated as "Trial," and 3 days (W-F) were designated as "Trial" during week ending 23 Feb 2024. In other words 8 days were designated as Trial during February.
From the Prosecutors Handbook linked below, the Voir Dire is defined as the Trial within a Trial.
A voir dire (trial within a trial) is held to determine any issue during the course of a trial in any court, usually the admissibility of impugned evidence. A voir dire may be conducted prior to the swearing in of assessors but after the accused person has pleaded to the information. (see Section288 of the CPD 09).... More frequently, a trial within trial will be held to determine the admissibility of confessions, i.e. admissions against interest made by an accused to a person in authority.
I dunno-- given the pretrial conference hearing was April 2023, it seems to me that the voir dire would have been held much earlier than during the Trial dates designated on the February 2024 cause lists.
When I tried matching the cause list trial dates to the cover page of the voir dire ruling above, there's a discrepancy between what was reported as the "Dates of the Hearing" on the Voir Dire Summary, and the "Trial" dates on the Cause list.
More specifically, was the trial being conducted in the THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT LAUTOKA at the same time of Voire Dire, or is the weekly cause list referring to Voire Dire?
However, if Voire Dire is to be held at the outset of the trial, then it doesn't follow that the trial concluded, and "First Call" and "Mention" scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, 2024 is only the beginning. I guess we have to wait the the June cause lists to confirm! JMO
Prosecutors Handbook - Page 75/162:
“[24] Whenever the court is advised that there is a challenge to the confession, it must hold a trial within a trial on the issue of admissibility unless counsel for the defence specifically declines such a hearing. When the accused is not represented, a trial within a trial must always be held. At the conclusion of the trial within a trial, a ruling must be given before the principal trial proceeds further. Where the confession is so crucial to the prosecution case that is exclusion will result in there being no case to answer, the trial within a trial should beheld at the outset of the trial. In other cases, the court may decide to wait until the evidence of the disputed confessions is to be led.
judiciary.gov.fj
