An appeal to quash a conviction against the former Associate Minister of Trade, Muagututagata Peter Ah Him, took an unexpected twist yesterday.
It happened when Muagututagata was left by his lawyer, Fepulea’i Patrick Fepulea’i, to represent himself in the Court of Appeal.
The appeal is against one of two convictions against the defendant. It is based upon the argument by Muagututagata over what he claims as inconsistencies in the evidence given by a Chinese key witness.
<!-- ads-articles(24.03.14) -->
<ins class="adsbygoogle"
style="display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-9419815128221199"
data-ad-slot="2395638412"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>{/googleAds}
In the Court of Appeal yesterday, Fepulea’i felt he had not been given ample time to prepare for the appeal. He requested a twoweek adjournment, which was denied.
He said on being approached by his client on Monday, he had had only two days to prepare for the appeal. He felt it was not enough.
Justice Fisher agreed. He said that had he had only two days to prepare, then that would have been “grossly unfair for you to proceed.”
But he pointed out that it has been about two and a half months since the conviction and this time could have been devoted to the appeal.
“We’re prepared. We’ve all read the whole file. In my case, I have read it a couple of times,” said Justice Blanchard.
The options given by the Court of Appeal then were for Muagututagata to either proceed without a lawyer or that his lawyer sits in the audience and helps his client during the hearing as there were also technical legal issues to discuss.
“We’ve discussed this, Your Honour, and my client will confirm this. His preference is for me to represent him rather than to proceed to withdraw. I feel I’m not in a position to do that... That it’s better to withdraw than to proceed.”
The Court of Appeal ruled against an adjournment and for the case to continue yesterday afternoon.
“The court fully understands the position [Mr Fepulea’i] finds himself in. The court strongly urges Mr Fepulea’i to remain as Counsel, even on basis without formal preparation. He can assist with issues that may arise,” said Justice Fisher.
Fepulea’i then spoke with his client privately. Later, he asked the Court of Appeal to be excused completely, leaving Muagututagata to represent himself.
At that point, Justice Fisher explained that it was understood from Fepulea’i that the defendant will say the conviction was wrong, based on evidence given by a key witness.
“And that she was unreliable, as shown by inconsistencies in the evidence.”
Muagututagata was asked if he had anything to say.
“I find myself confused at what’s been going on. I wish to say, I beg you not to deny me justice without representation. This case, Your Honour, is very important to me and my family and my constituency...”
“When my lawyer told me on Monday that he can’t assure me that he can represent me, I was very uncomfortable. Therefore I request from you an adjournment of my case so I can get legal representation in this Court. This is my request, Your Honour.
“He’s [Mr Fepulea’i] given me this file. I don’t even know where to start!”
Muagututagata was asked that when convicted two and a half months ago, whether it seemed to him that the conviction was wrong.
The appellant replied that an appeal was never discussed with his lawyer.
“But if you thought the sentence was wrong at the time, no matter what it was, you would’ve wanted to do something about it?” asked Justice Panchurst.
Muagututagata claimed that he was advised by Fepulea’i to wait till after the March 2 sentencing.
Meanwhile, the appellant had travelled overseas and on his return, decided to appeal the decision.
The Court of Appeal noted that by then, a month had lapsed before the decision to appeal the case was made. And the discussions would continue on matters relating to the history of the case and why an adjournment was not appropriate.
On being told that it was Muagututagata’s decision to continue without a lawyer, he protested.
“It was the lawyer’s decision not to appear on my case. I didn’t ask him to withdraw. He withdrew.”
He was informed that there would be no adjournment and that the hearing would continue.
“You will have every opportunity to say what you like to in support of the appeal.”
While the background of the case was presented with facts being confirmed or refuted by Muagututagata, he again asked what the implications would be for him if he did not want to go through with the appeal. This was made on the basis of a refusal for an adjournment.
“Am I being forced to go through this without legal representation?”
Justice Fisher responded that he was not being forced to stay on during the court hearings and should he stay on, he was not forced to say anything. Muagututagata was free to come and go.
“The important point is that we are hearing the case and it will go ahead.”
He was informed that nothing he said would be used as evidence against him. In answering questions posed to him by the Court, it was only to clarify evidence that was already on record. Muagututagata said he was not aware of this and felt obliged to answer. He requested ten minutes to discuss the options with his wife.
On the resumption of the Court of Appeal, Muagututagata asked that his wife sit next to him and also requested a translator.
<!-- 336x280 (bottom-article) -->
<ins class="adsbygoogle"
style="display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-2469982834957525"
data-ad-slot="1033882026"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>{/googleAds}