IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0028 of 2005S

STATE

v.

JOSAIA TUKANA

Hearing: 14th July 2005
Ruling: 15th July 2005

Counsel: Ms K. Bavou for State
Applicant in person

Bail Ruling

The Applicant, who is charged with the murder of his wife, Naomi Marama, on the 21st of February 2005, has applied for bail. He applies on the grounds that he has a right to bail, that he needs to take care of his two small children, that he wishes to pay for his own lawyer and therefore to earn a wage, and that he has now reconciled with his in-laws, who are the parents of the deceased. He says he will not interfere with witnesses. He lives at Wainunu Settlement.

The State asked for time to file an affidavit in response. Counsel said, on the basis of the affidavit of Detective Constable Antonio Koro, that the Applicant was a bail risk. She said he was unemployed, single and had 9 previous convictions. The last conviction is for act with intent to cause grievous harm and is dated September 2004. He has two other convictions for assault. He made a complete confession as to his involvement in the murder to the police and there are a number of witnesses who will also give evidence about the alleged murder. State counsel also submitted that the offence is serious, the Applicant has had an unstable background and there is a real possibility of interference with witnesses.

The Applicant has a right to bail. However, the presumption may be rebutted by State, the principal consideration being the likelihood of appearing in court to answer to the charge.

In this case, I am satisfied that the State has rebutted the presumption. The Applicant has a number of previous convictions, some of which are for assault. He will return to the same small community where prosecution witnesses live. The family of the deceased lives there. Despite the reconciliation which has taken place (and perhaps because of it) there is a risk of interference. Murder is a most serious offence and prima facie, the prosecution case appears to be strong.

I consider that in the public interest he should be remanded in custody pending trial. However his case will be reviewed fortnightly until the trial.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
15th July 2005