The Suva Magistrates Court has reserved its ruling until tomorrow on whether the prosecution can rely on a newly disclosed witness statement and certified company documents in the trial of former deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad said he would need to consider the competing submissions, particularly the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial, after the prosecution disclosed the material during the course of the trial.
Manager Legal Joseph Work argued that its duty to disclose relevant material was continuing and relied on several authorities, including Supreme Court decisions, to submit that late disclosure did not automatically amount to prejudice.
Mr Work submitted that the additional disclosure comprised a statement from former Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem and a certified copy of a company document.
He said Mr Saneem’s statement contained no new material that would prejudice the defence and that the evidence was substantially similar to evidence already disclosed.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu, however, argued that the introduction of Mr Saneem as a new witness at this stage created a real disadvantage because defence would need time to investigate the witness, his background and the relevance of his evidence.
Mr Naidu also submitted that any adjournment to allow the defence to prepare would itself cause further delay and affect Professor Prasad’s constitutional right to have his trial concluded without unreasonable delay.
Magistrate Prasad questioned the prosecution about the timing of the new evidence and acknowledged that, while the prosecution had a continuing duty of disclosure, the court also had to consider the accused’s constitutional rights.
He noted that a new witness constituted new evidence, even if the witness was expected to give evidence on substantially the same matters as another witness.
Mr Work maintained there had been no bad faith and that the statement was disclosed after it was recorded.
He also argued that the defence would have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr Saneem if the witness was permitted to give evidence.
Mr Naidu disputed that the issue could simply be resolved by an adjournment, arguing that repeated delays had already affected the progress of the trial and the availability of defence.
He also submitted that the prosecution should have sought the court’s directions before introducing further material once the trial was under way.
Magistrate Prasad said that going forward, any further new material introduced during the trial would require the prosecution to seek the court’s leave before it could be admitted.
The ruling will be delivered at 11.30am tomorrow, after which the court will determine how the trial proceeds.
