The High Court in Suva has ruled that the Magistrates’ Court has jurisdiction to hear offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act, overturning an earlier decision to transfer a case involving accused Simione Serukalou.
In a ruling delivered yesterday, Justice Thusara Rajasinghe found that the Nasinu Magistrates’ Court erred in law when it transferred the matter to the High Court on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.
Mr Serukalou had been charged with one count of unlawful possession of illicit drugs and one count of possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
The Magistrates’ Court had ruled that only the High Court could hear the second charge, relying on the interpretation of the term “Court” in the Proceeds of Crime Act.
However, the High Court found that while the Act defines “Court” as the High Court, it does not explicitly grant exclusive jurisdiction to it for all offences under the legislation.
Justice Rajasinghe said jurisdiction must be clearly stated in law and cannot be assumed through interpretation alone.
“Jurisdiction is the authority conferred upon the Court to hear and determine disputes, and it must be exercised in accordance with the procedures established by law,” he said.
The Court noted that under the Criminal Procedure Act, offences created under laws that do not specify jurisdiction may be heard in the Magistrates’ Court.
It further found that most offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act, including the charge faced by Mr Serukalou, do not expressly state which court has jurisdiction.
“Neither Section 3 nor any other parts of the Proceeds of Crime Act explicitly grant the High Court the jurisdiction to hear and try these offences,” Justice Rajasinghe ruled.
As a result, the Court ordered that the matter be remitted back to the Magistrates’ Court in Nasinu for hearing.
