IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0042 of 2004S

STATE

v.

MAIKELI RAWAQA

Hearing: 1st April 2005
Ruling: 6th April 2005

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

RULING

The Accused makes an application for bail pending trial. This is his second application in the High Court. His previous application was refused on the 22nd of February 2005 on the grounds that there is a likelihood of interference with the prosecution witnesses related to him, that other suspects are still at large and some stolen items are yet to be recovered.

He now applies on the grounds that the prosecution case against him is weak, and the police altered the witness statement of his wife, who is a prosecution witness.

The State objects to bail on the grounds that the Accused has admitted discussing this case with a prosecution witness (his wife), that the trial is now fixed for June 2005, that other suspects are still to be apprehended and transferred to the High Court, and that the stolen money has not yet been recovered.

In his submissions in court, the Accused said that his wife, a prosecution witness, has been visiting him in prison. She told him that she had told the police that the Accused had not given her the rings mentioned in her statement but that the police had recorded something else in the English version of her statement. He also said that the police had obtained a false confession from him by force.

In her statement, Amelia Marama told the police that on the 16th of September 2004, her husband, the Accused, gave her three gold rings from Anita Jewellers and from Raniga Jewellers. The previous Monday, he had given her two mobile phones and told her to look after them. These items were seized by the police, and in his alleged confession, the Accused apparently confessed to buying these items with the proceeds of the robbery alleged on the Information. Clearly the Accused’s wife is a crucial witness for the prosecution, and just as clearly, she and the Accused have been discussing the case and the evidence in it.

It is correct that the prosecution case, without the evidence of Amelia Marama, will depend substantially on the evidence of police officers. The Accused will dispute the admissibility and truth of his confession. However, on the papers disclosed to him, there is a strong prima facie case, and although this position may alter at the trial after the disputed evidence is heard, an assessment of the evidence at the stage of a bail application, can only be made on the papers.

There is also substance in the prosecution concern that the Accused is interfering with prosecution witnesses. The trial will now commence in 2 months. The Accused has been in custody since November of last year, and since his transfer to the High Court, since December of last year. The length of time he will have been held in custody pre-trial is not excessive. In the public interest, his application for bail must be dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
6th April 2005