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

State v Rawaqa [2005] FJHC 32; HAC0042D.2004S (22 February 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0042 of 2004S

STATE

v.

MAIKELI RAWAQA

Hearing: 18th February 2005
Ruling: 22nd February 2005

Counsel: Mr. D. Toganivalu for State
Applicant in Person

RULING

This is an application for bail pending trial. The Applicant, who made a verbal application from the dock, has been in custody since the 1st of December 2004 when this case was transferred to the High Court. He says that he has the right to bail and that he needs to be at liberty to prepare his defence.

The State objects to bail on the grounds that he is likely to abscond because he evaded police before he arrested, that the offence is serious, the prosecution case is strong and includes the Applicant’s confession to police, and that because his wife and father are prosecution witnesses, he is likely to interfere with them. The State further says that the other co-accused are still at large and some items are still to be recovered.

Of these reasons, the latter reasons I consider to be compelling. The Applicant is charged with committing robbery with violence with three others. Only one of the three has been apprehended and the police have been searching for the remaining two. Two of the witnesses are closely related to the Applicant, and although the Applicant says that he would live in Kuku and not in Namena where his wife lives with her father, I have no confidence that there will be no interference with witnesses. I consider that the public interest demands the continued remand of the Applicant at this time. However, I am concerned at the possible length of time he will be detained. We still await a transfer order for a co-accused, who is currently before the Nausori Court. After transfer, the State will apply for consolidation. With no hearing date set at present, and all three criminal judges occupied with trials until August, the Applicant may not be tried before October.

I will therefore continue to consider bail on each bail review date to evaluate the wisdom in the continued detention of the Applicant.

Bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
22nd February 2005