The Supreme Court has ruled that a case of murder must return to the Court of Appeal for retrial, finding that the Court of Appeal was wrong to quash a murder conviction on the basis of alleged defects in the charging document.
In a judgment delivered on 30 October 2025, a three-judge Supreme Court panel—Justice Anthony Gates, Justice Terence Arnold and Justice Lowell Goddard—found that the Court of Appeal had taken an “overly formalistic” approach and that no real unfairness had been caused to the accused.
Justice Arnold, writing the lead judgment, said the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Pauliasi Nausara was prejudiced because the charge did not mention the date of the assault “was unsustainable.”
“Everything that happened after the information was filed—the disclosure, the agreed facts, the medical evidence—related back to the events of 21 March 2015,” Justice Arnold stated.
“It is fanciful to suggest that the respondent thought he was being charged for something that occurred on 25 June.”
Naosara was charged with murdering 28-year-old Michael Semiti Osborne, who died in June 2015 after spending months in hospital following a brutal assault at Oriana Junction, Lautoka. Evidence at trial showed Nausara punched, kicked and stomped on Osborne after discovering him driving his vehicle without permission.
Although assessors returned a manslaughter opinion, the trial judge convicted Nausara of murder and imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years.
The Court of Appeal later overturned the conviction, ruling that the information (the formal charge) was defective because it failed to specify the date of the assault, and whether the prosecution relied on intention or recklessness as the mental element for murder.
But the Supreme Court disagreed, finding no unfairness occurred.
Justice Arnold noted that Nausara had been told of the full allegation from the beginning.
“The respondent knew from the time he was charged what the allegations against him were. He was able to, and did, present his defence,” he said.
On the second issue—the mental element—the Supreme Court said the omission caused no prejudice because the trial judge ultimately required the assessors to consider only intention, a direction that was actually favourable to Nausara.
“Removing recklessness as a mental element was obviously favourable to the respondent, given that intention is generally harder to prove,” Justice Arnold said.
The State had argued that the prosecution could not be required to commit to intention or recklessness before hearing all the evidence.
The Supreme Court agreed, adding that the trial record showed no indication from defence lawyers that they were unable to prepare their case.
