Home » Uncategorized » Defence lawyer, Anand Singh, has expressed strong disquiet that the DPP had chosen to make comments on the case of his client, Mahendra Chaudhry, when it was still before the courts.

Defence lawyer, Anand Singh, has expressed strong disquiet that the DPP had chosen to make comments on the case of his client, Mahendra Chaudhry, when it was still before the courts.

Driti, Chaudhry Prosecution Not Political: DPP

MAKA BOLATIKI
SUVA
The decision to prosecute Fiji Labour Party leader, Mahendra Chaudhry, and the former Republic of Fiji Military Forces Land Force Commander, Pita Driti, was not political. Addressing the Fiji–New Zealand Business Council Conference last Saturday at the Grand Pacific Hotel, Suva, was the Director of Public Prosecutions, Christopher Pryde.
He clarified that one factor that had absolutely no bearing on the public interest factor was whether the cases were political.
“Both the Chaudhry and Driti cases could be seen as political in a broad sense (and they were often described as such in the media) but they were only political in the sense that, in the case of Mr Chaudhry, he was a politician intending to stand in the elections and in the case of Mr Driti, that his intentions were political by wanting to subvert the government,” Mr Pryde said.
In both of these cases, he said, the first step in the process was satisfied; there was sufficient evidence touching on each element of the offence that together provided a reasonable prospect of conviction if the matter went to trial.
“The matters therefore, from an evidentiary perspective, were non-contentious; there was clear, objective evidence upon which a court properly directed could convict. The question in both cases however was one of public interest. In spite of there being sufficient evidence to convict, was it in the public interest to continue?”
He said the public interest factors in favour or against prosecution were summarised in Fiji’s Prosecution Code, which in turn is based on similar codes used throughout the common-law world.
In the Chaudhry case, he said, representations were received from Chaudhry’s lawyer and the original trial date was vacated in order to consider them.
“Ultimately, I made a decision that the factors favouring continuation of the prosecution outweighed the factors against. The same public interest test process was applied in the Driti case and both men were then committed for trial.”
Meanwhile defence lawyer, Anand Singh, has expressed strong disquiet that the DPP had chosen to make comments on the case of his client, Mahendra Chaudhry, when it was still before the courts.
Feedback: maikab@fijisun.com.fj

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Defence lawyer, Anand Singh, has expressed strong disquiet that the DPP had chosen to make comments on the case of his client, Mahendra Chaudhry, when it was still before the courts.

  1. That does not still remove the fact that the judiciary and DPP collectively work to the regime’s political agenda of trying everyone who is an opponent of the regime! Come on Christopher, I’m sure you can be more convincing than this. Your utterances about Chaudhry when his case was still before the court speaks for itself! The public interest you talk about is very skewed and quite demeaning to the Fiji citizens at large. To be honest the public is more more interested in the trying of Bainimarama, Khaiyum, and all the shadowy figures in the coup-coup clan for their ongoing abuse, robbery and criminal activity in Fiji! But knowing that you all preside in a kangaroo court paid for tax payers who are still waiting for a thorough audit of public finances, the delivery of true justice is a million of miles away. So the only advise the public can give Mr Pryde now is – try harder next time, you are simply not convincing enough!

  2. Maika Bolatiki. Just know that someday, you will have to account for all that you have said, and done, in private and in the public arena. I would have thought you had learnt a valuable lesson from your teaching days, where you had been alleged to commit an unpardonable crime against one of your students. But you appear to be one of those unteachable spirits. Be careful Bolatiki. Your convenient loyalty to Voreqe to get ahead or get along will warrant God’s wrath. Then you will have to answer that momentous question, just like Ayyaz, Voreqe, Nazhaat and Bole and others, “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul ? Maika, we are so ashamed of you. Please repent. Its not too late. And please talk to Delaibatiki also. The two of you are a disgrace to our Fijian people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s