IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0013 OF 1999S

STATE

-v-

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI;
SAIRUSI UASIRO; and
SAIMONI SABAKERA

Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State
Mr. N. Vere for 1st and 2nd Accused
3rd Accused in Person

RULING ON BAIL

All three accused persons have applied for bail pending trial. Their trial will commence on the 11th of August and is listed for 3 weeks. The charges are as follows:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO and SAIMONI SABAKERA on the 21st day of May, 1999 at Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to SARASWATI PRIMARY SCHOOL.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO and SAIMONI SABAKERA on the 22nd day of May 1999 at Korociriciri, Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to KOROCIRICIRI INDIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL.

THIRD COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI, SAIRUSI UASIRO and SAIMONI SABAKERA on the 22nd day of May, 1999 at Wainibokasi, Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to SHREEDHAR MAHARAJ COLLEGE.

FOURTH COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 317(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

AMEO RAMOKOSOI LIACI on the 22nd day of May, 1999 at Nausori in the Central Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to the SOQOSOQO NI VAKAVULEWA NI TAUKEI OFFICE.

This is a very old case. It was first called in the High Court before Sadal J on the 27th of August 1999. It was then called in turn before Surman J, Pathik J and Sadal J again. Hearing dates could not be fixed on most occasions because one or other of the accused persons did not appear. In the Magistrates’ Court, on the 8th of June 1999, the committing court bailed the 1st and 2nd accused on the condition that they report at the Nausori Police Station between 9am and 12 noon every Saturday, and the 3rd accused at the Wainibokasi Police Post every Saturday between 9am and 12 noon. The other condition was that they do not interfere with State witnesses.

In the High Court bench warrants were issued on the 9th of June 2000 (for the 1st accused) and 26th of January 2001 (for the 3rd accused). On 27th February 2001 the matter was first called before me and I was told that the 3rd accused could not be located. A hearing date for the 21st of May 2001 was set. On that day all accused appeared but the prosecution was not ready. The case was adjourned to 29th May for hearing. On that day none of the accused appeared. I was told that the 1st accused was giving evidence in a treason trial. The case was adjourned to 15th June. The accused appeared but wanted time to seek separate legal representation. On the next date, the 16th of July 2001, none of the accused appeared and I issued bench warrants. On the 17th of September only the 2nd and 3rd accused appeared. Another hearing date was set for the 1st of October 2001 with a pre-trial conference for the 21st of September. On that date the 1st accused failed again to appear. Mr. Vere who was counsel for him, asked to postpone the trial. A new hearing date was set for the 9th of October and State counsel was requested to pursue the execution of the bench warrant. On the 5th of October (pre-trial conference) the 1st and 3rd accused did not appear. On the 9th of October 2001, the 1st and 2nd accused did not appear at the time listed for trial and a bench warrant was issued for the 2nd accused. The case was adjourned to 15th October for trial.

On the 15th of October the 1st and 3rd accused failed to appear. A bench warrant was issued but cancelled on the 13th of November for the 3rd accused because State counsel did not object to bail. On the same day the 3rd accused’s reporting conditions were varied to twice a week (Mondays and Fridays) at the Wainibokasi Police Post. He had one surety. The 1st accused remained missing.

On the 10th of February 2003 all three accused finally appeared. The case was set for hearing for the 11th of August 2003 and for mention for pre-trial matters for 19th of February. Bail for the 1st and 2nd accused was granted on condition that they report to the Wainibokasi Police Post on Mondays and Fridays. They were told that if they could not report they should contact Inspector Shyam of Nausori Police Station.

On the 19th of February, the 1st accused failed again to appear. The matter was adjourned to 16th July 2003 for pre-trial conference. On the 21st of March 2003 the bench warrant for the 1st accused was executed and he was brought before Gates J who remanded him until the 16th of July. His Lordship was told that the accused had failed to appear previously (on 19/2/03) because of illness.

This morning only the 1st accused appeared at 9am when the case was listed. The other two accused appeared in the course of proceedings. They both said they had been abiding by their bail conditions. Counsel for the 1st accused and 2nd accused asked for bail for the 1st accused and continued bail for the 2nd accused. He submitted a letter written by the 1st accused purporting to excuse his absences, and a medical report which showed that on the 18th of February, he was suffering from dengue fever. He did not explain why on all previous occasions he failed to inform the court or his counsel that he would not be coming to court and why. Further whilst his excuses relate to his absence on the 19th of February 2003, there is no explanation for his continued absence previously.

The 2nd accused denied that he was supposed to report to any police post, a denial contradicted by the court record both in the High Court and the Magistrates’ Court. The 3rd accused maintained that he had been reporting.

State counsel opposes bail for all three accused, saying that their continued disregard for court orders and hearing dates had jeopardised the hearing of this case. He said that the police at Wainibokasi had informed him that neither the 2nd nor the 3rd accused had been reporting at the Police Post. He said that it was unlikely that all three accused would appear for trial if granted bail.

Bail is a Constitutional right for all accused persons unless it is not in the interests of justice that bail should be granted. The presumption in favour of bail is displaced, under section 3(4) of the Bail Act where the person seeking bail has breached bail conditions. Section 17 of the Bail Act requires a court to consider the length of time a person may have to spend in custody pending trial, the likelihood of the accused appearing in court to answer the charges, the interests of the accused, the public interest, the nature and seriousness of the case, the likelihood of interference with witnesses and previous failure to observe bail conditions. Other conditions are listed in section 19 of the Bail Act.

In this case, there is a history of non-appearance in court by the 1st accused. On several occasions, it has led to delay in the hearing of the case. The 2nd and 3rd accused have appeared more frequently but have both failed to abide by their reporting conditions, imposed in the Magistrates’ Court and the High Court. There is every likelihood that all three accused will not appear for trial on the 11th of August 2003 unless they are remanded in custody. This case has dragged on for long enough. In the interests of justice I consider that all three accused must be remanded in custody until the 30th of July 2003 when their case will be mentioned at 9.30am in open court. The trial will commence on the 11th of August 2003 at 9.30am.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
16th July 2003