RESIGN or RECUSE from the Bainimarama-Qiliho case in Fiji High Court. *Unlike the Suva lawyer Richard Naidu who ridiculed one of your former fellow Judge, we would like to point out to you that the case you relied on is NOT Brown v Dunn. It is, your Lordship, Browne v Dunn.
*Sorry, for pointing out the Goof! I am sure like Naidu, whoever ridicules your Brown and Browne goof, will get Absolute Discharge without Conviction on A-G Siromi Turaga's intervention.
*In many recent judgments, overseas courts have argued that Browne v Dunn should not be overzealously applied.
*In the situation that the rule is broken, the question turns to the appropriate remedy. R v McNeill, [2000] OJ No 1357, 144 CCC (3d) 551 provides two potential remedies. The primary remedy, and the one to be considered first, is to recall the witness. The aggrieved party can then either accept or decline the recall of their witness.
*Should they decline it, the secondary option need not be considered. In situations where it is impossible or highly impracticable to recall the witness, the secondary remedy is for the trial judge to consider giving the jury (if there is one) special instructions. If special instructions are warranted, the jury should be told that in assessing the weight to be given to the uncontradicted evidence, they may properly take into account the fact that the opposing witness was not questioned about it. *The jury should also be told that they may take this into account in assessing the credibility of the opposing witness.
*As for Seini Puamau's judgment, she is protected from your wrath.
 |  |  |
PUAMAU IS PROTECTED FROM YOUR FLAWED THREAT TO HAND HER OVER TO THE FIJI POLICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
Section 113 (5) of the Constitution of Fiji
SALESI TEMO SHOULD BE SUSPENDED AND FACE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL FOR THREATENING TO DEFY S113(5) OF CONSTITUTION
