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

Navuki v The State [2004] FJHC 275; HAM0082D.2004S (29 December 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Cr. Misc. Case No: HAM0082 of 2004S

Between:

LAISENIA NAVUKI
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 28th December 2004
Ruling: 29th December 2004

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Ms N. Tikoisuva for State

RULING

This is an application for bail pending appeal. The Applicant was convicted on one count of robbery with violence and one count of damaging property on the 8th of November 2004. He was sentenced to a total of 4½ years imprisonment on the following day. The Applicant says that he has an appeal pending from the convictions and sentence. However, a copy of the petition of appeal has not been given to me.

The grounds of his application are that his appeal is likely to succeed, and that the appeal hearing is likely to be delayed. State counsel opposes the application. She states that although the merits of the appeal are impossible to assess, the Applicant has only served two months of his total sentence of 4½ years and no petition of appeal has been seen by the court. She says that no good grounds exist to justify the grant of bail pending appeal.

Despite calling for the court file on the 20th of December 2004, it was not forwarded to the High Court Registry before this application was heard. I was forced to rely instead on submissions by the Applicant and State counsel. If a petition of appeal, or appeal letter has indeed been filed in the Magistrates’ Court Registry, I am unaware of it. State counsel informs me that the value of the property alleged to have been robbed is in excess of $8000. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to a full trial.

I cannot say whether the appeal is likely to succeed, or indeed if there is an appeal afoot at all. However, I am able to say that, assuming the Applicant filed his appeal in time, the hearing of his appeal is unlikely to be delayed for longer than a few months. This is not unreasonable in relation to a 4½ year term of imprisonment. Further the sentence itself falls into the lower end of the tariff for robbery with violence, and does not appear to be wrong in principle.

No exceptional grounds exist for the granting of bail pending appeal. This application is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
29th December 2004