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

Nave v The State [2005] FJHC 57; HAM0011D.2005S (18 March 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Criminal Misc. Case No: HAM 011 of 2005S

Between:

VOREQE LALAKOHAI NAVE
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 16th March 2005
Ruling: 18th March 2005

Counsel: Mr. R. Singh for Applicant
Mr. A. Ravindra-Singh for State

RULING

The Applicant applies for bail pending trial. He has been in remand since he was charged with the murder of Laiakini Colati, at Tacirua Village on the 3rd of December 2004. He applies on the grounds that he has a fixed address, that his charge should be one of manslaughter rather than of murder, that he has only two minor previous convictions (for drunk and disorderly conduct) and that there is no risk of re-offending or of interfering with witnesses whilst on bail.

State counsel objects to bail on the grounds that the offence is a serious one, the witnesses are from the same village as the Applicant, and that because the Applicant appears to have difficulty controlling his behaviour whilst drunk, he is a bail risk.

The question of the appropriateness of the charge is not a matter for me to consider at this stage. Counsel for the Applicant has made representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions for the reduction of the charge, and it is a matter for the Director to decide on the charge to be laid in the Information. However, relevant to this application is the fact that the Applicant has a fixed address, that he does not have a daunting list of previous conviction, that he has, as counsel informed me, reconciled with the victim’s family in a traditional ceremony, and that he is a farmer who farms on communal land in Tacirua. Counsel says that the Applicant does not dispute the assault by him on the victim, and that therefore the evidence of any eye-witnesses is of marginal importance.

I cannot accept this last argument because it is impossible to say at this stage, what matters in dispute, eye-witnesses will be giving evidence about and how crucial their evidence will be. Although, the State has not shown me that there is any likelihood that the Applicant will in fact interfere with witnesses, there is a chance of such interference because witnesses and Applicant all reside in the same village.

This trial may not proceed this year, now that the Suva criminal judges are assigned to clearing the Labasa criminal trials. Certainly there is currently no judge available until September, and this case has not been set a hearing date because we await the DPP’s decision on reduction of the charge. However all efforts will be made to list the case for hearing in September or October this year.

If the trial proceeds in September 2005, the Applicant will have been in custody for less than 12 months. This is not excessive in a case where the accused is charged with murder. However, if a greater delay becomes likely, bail can be reconsidered.

In all the circumstances, bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
18th March 2005