|
DPP v Vikash Sharma
|
(1994) 40 FLR 234
|
|
Australia
|
1 Nov 1994
|
PacLII
|
|
 13 
|
|
R v Cox
|
[1960] VicRp 102; [1960] VR 665
|
|
Australia - Victoria
|
17 Jun 1960
|
AustLII
|
|
37
|
|
State v Agape Fishing Enterprises
|
[2008] FJHC 19
|
High Court of Fiji
|
Fiji
|
15 Feb 2008
|
PacLII
|
|
3
|
|
State v Nand
|
[2005] FJHC 79
|
High Court of Fiji
|
Fiji
|
21 Jan 2005
|
PacLII
|
|
3
|
|
DPP v Kalou
|
[1996] FJHC 130
|
High Court of Fiji
|
Fiji
|
16 Jul 1996
|
PacLII
|
|
2
|
|
Macahill v R
|
[1980] FJCA 1
|
Court of Appeal of Fiji
|
Fiji
|
30 Sep 1980
|
PacLII
|
|
6
|
|
Maxwell v Keun
|
[1928] 1 KB 645
|
|
United Kingdom
|
circa 1928
|
LexisNexis / Westlaw
|
|
202
|
|
When granting an adjournment in these circumstances courts must be fair to both sides The defence because an accused is presumed innocent and entitled to have his case disposed of quickly The prosecution because as societies guardian they must protect the public interest by ensuring that properly brought prosecutions are concluded In R v Swansea, Justices and Davies, Ex-parte DPP
|
154 JP 709
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
|
8
|
