Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Boila v The State [2004] FJHC 236; HAM0054D.2004S (17 August 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: HAM0054 OF 2004S

Between:

SENIJIELI BOILA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 16th August 2004
Ruling: 17th August 2004

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State

RULING ON BAIL PENDING TRIAL

On the 27th of July 2004 I granted the Applicant bail on the ground that he had no previous history of disobeying bail conditions and orders. However whilst on bail he failed to attend court in Case No. 713/04 on a charge of damaging property and he was arrested on bench warrant. He now applies for bail again on the ground that his case was not listed for hearing on the 30th of July and that he should not be remanded in custody.

The State opposes bail, and is now armed with much better information then it was for the Applicant’s previous High Court bail application.

The Applicant is presently facing the following charges:

CF 73/04 – Damaging Property;

CF 1132/03 – Wrongful Confinement;

CF 1504/04 – Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle and Robbery with Violence;

CF 2629/03 – Robbery with Violence (7 counts);

CF 1995/03 – Robbery with Violence (1 count) and Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle.

The Applicant is facing a total of 15 charges. The majority of these charges are alleged to have been committed whilst the Applicant was on bail for the Wrongful Confinement charge in CF 1132/03.

When I granted bail to the Applicant I was of the view that the State had not advanced any good reason for opposing bail, and in particular had not shown any previous disobedience of bail conditions. I now have much better information before me, and I am now satisfied that the Applicant has indeed failed to obey the orders of the Magistrates’ Court to appear in court on the 30th of July. Further although the Applicant says that he did appear in court on that day, he later told me at the hearing of this application that he had checked the cause list and when he did not find his name on the list he left after talking to the court orderly. This is an unacceptable explanation from a person who is well-versed in the criminal court process. Further, I am satisfied that he is alleged to have re-offended whilst on bail and that it is not in the public interest to grant bail.

For these reasons, bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
17th August 2004