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

Momo v State - Ruling on Bail Application [2012] FJHC 1086; HAM 183.2011 (16 March 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 183 OF 2011S

SEREMAIA MOMO

vs

THE STATE

Counsels : Ms. A. Lomani for the State
Mr. J. Savou for Accused
Hearing : 9th December, 2011
Ruling : 16th March, 2012

RULING ON BAIL APPLICATION

1. In High Court Criminal Case No. HAC 086 of 2011S, the accused faces the following information:
   

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

MURDER: contrary to Section 237(a)(b)(c) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

SEREMAIA NAIDOLE MOMO on the 13th day of March 2011 at Kasavu, Nausori in the Central Division, murdered TONY BARLEY.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

MURDER: contrary to Section 237(a)(b)(c) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

SEREMAIA NAIDOLE MOMO on the 13th day of March 2011 at Kasavu, Nausori in the Central Division, murdered MERE MARIA NAVUE.

2. The trial date for the case has been set from 2nd to 20th July, 2012 ie. a 3 weeks trial. It is accepted that the primary consideration for the grant of bail, was whether or not, the accused will turn up, on the date arranged, to take his trial (section 17(2) of the Bail Act 2002). In considering the above issue, the court was bound to consider the factors outlined in section 19 of the Bail Act 2002.
   
3. In this case, the accused is facing not one, but two murder charges. Although the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the circumstances surrounding the offences appeared serious. On 23rd September 2011, the prosecution said that their case, was based entirely on the accused's confession, including some circumstantial evidence. The likely penalty for the accused if found guilty would be the mandatory life imprisonment.
   
4. The trial is only 3 months away. The accused is represented by the Legal Aid Commission, and his interests are not affected, because his counsel can visit him, while in custody.
   
5. As to the protection of the accused and the public, there is every reason to hold the accused in custody. The people near the crime scene are still not happy with the accused. The police said, there is still tension in the area. According to the police, his safety is at risk, if released on bail. There is also the fear that if the accused is released on bail, he may interfere with police witnesses.
   
6. In my view, the factors governing the issue of bail are so stacked against the accused. He is remanded in custody until trial time. This is to ensure the accused's and the public's safety. I rule so accordingly.
   

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for Accused : Legal Aid Commission, Suva
Solicitor for the State : Office of Director of Public Prosecution, Suva