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

State v Dromudole [2008] FJHC 95; HAC041D.2008S (25 April 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC 041 of 2008

STATE

v.

AKUILA DROMUDOLE
ALIFERETI TOKONA
IRIMAIA RATUNARUKUTABUA
VILIMONI SAUMAKI
FELIX VUSONITOKALAU

Hearing: 23rd April 2008
Ruling: 25th April 2008

Counsel: Mr. L. Fotofili for State
All Accused in person

Ruling on Bail Pending Trial

The 1st Accused renews his application for bail pending trial. The 4th Accused makes a bail application. This is the ruling in respect of both.

On the 21st of April 2008 I refused the 1st Accused’s application principally on the rounds that the remand facilities at Korovou (which are currently unsatisfactory and which has been the reason for bail being granted to the 5th Accused) are currently undergoing urgent renovations. The Sacau Dormitory will be ready for occupation, I was told in evidence, in two weeks time. The 1st Accused’s cause for complaint is therefore temporary in nature. This situation remains unchanged. The second reason for the refusal of bail was that the 1st Accused had a record for absconding.

The 1st Accused in this application, renews his complaints about the remand facilities at Korovou and further says that his conviction for absconding was set aside on appeal. However the State has tendered evidence from the Criminal Records Office to say that this is not so. The record for absconding stands. For the same reasons, my decision of 21st April stands and bail is refused for the 1st Accused.

The 4th Accused applies for bail on the grounds that he is not a bail risk, the evidence against him is not strong and he is prepared to abide by strict bail conditions. He says that he will live in Makoi and that he needs to be released from prison so that he can earn and instruct counsel of his own choice.

The State opposes bail on the ground that the 4th Accused is charged on four counts of robbery with violence, the 4th Accused made an inculpatory statement to the police, the prosecution will rely on the evidence of a van driver who took the accused to the crime scene, the 4th Accused knows this van driver who also lives in Makoi, there is a risk of interference with the prosecution witness and that the Accused can arrange for counsel from prison.

The 4th Accused has several previous convictions, but none for absconding or being in breach of bail conditions.

I accept that the 4th Accused has now been in custody for 2½ months and that no trial date has been set. It is for that reason that this trial has been transferred to Mataitoga J. I have no available dates for trials in 2008. His Lordship may be able to give a date within the next 3 months so that the Accused do not remain in custody for a long period of time awaiting trial.

For the purposes of this application however, I consider that bail should be refused. The offences are multiple and serious. The prosecution case against the 4th Accused appears to be strong (subject of course to any ruling on the trial within a trial). Further the prosecution alleges a link between a key prosecution witness and the 4th Accused which would be endangered if the 4th Accused returned to the same community as the witness. My observations as to the remand facilities are as they were in the case of the 1st Accused.

I therefore refuse bail for the 4th Accused. He and the other Accused are of course at liberty to reapply for bail before Mataitoga J.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
25th April 2008