IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM 166 of 2012

BETWEEN:

ZHANG YONG
Applicant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

BEFORE : HON. MR. JUSTICE PAUL K. MADIGAN

Dates of Hearing : 5th & 11th October 2012
Date of Ruling : 12th October 2012

Counsel : Mr. A. Naco for Applicant
Ms S. Puamau for State

RULING

[1]	The applicant faces three counts of domestic trafficking in persons contrary to s.115(3) of the Crimes Decree 2009. He applies for bail pending trial in this Court.

[2]	The applicant is a business man and has been a citizen of Fiji for some 15 years. He lives permanently in the Laucala Beach Estate. He has a clear record and submits that he has a good defence to the charges.

[3]	The State objects to the granting of bail to this applicant. They submit that:

(i)	the crime is serious and will attract an immediate custodial term if there is a conviction.
(ii)	the offer of a surety is vague and unfixed.
(iii)	the evidence is strong.
(iv)	the actions of the applicant show disregard for authority.

[4]	While there is a presumption in favour of bail and a presumption of innocence, the circumstances of this case certainly give rise to concern.

[5]	On the sworn evidence of the investigating officer of the broader trafficking case which this applicant appears to have involved himself in, three young Thai ladies were brought into Fiji to work for one week as masseuses before being free to return to Thailand, however on arrival they were moved around and expected to work offering sexual services to "clients." They were accompanied from Thailand by two men (one Thai, one Hong Kong Chinese) but all were met at Nadi Airport by this applicant. He brought the party to Suva where he paid for rooms at the Holiday Inn. He accompanied the girls to move from the Holiday Inn to the Peninsula Hotel. At the Peninsula Hotel the applicant introduced a man to one of the ladies as her "customer." The applicant then took two of the ladies to residential premises in Nasese where they were expected to provide sexual services to customers. He continued to introduce men to the ladies at the Peninsula Hotel.

[6]	There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for the applicant's involvement with these ladies apart from being party to the trafficking, and it is not for this Court to make findings of guilt or innocence. The facts however disclose a deep involvement with the exercise of control over the ladies. At the very least he is by his actions bringing suspicion upon himself which suspicion goes a long way to rebutting the presumption in favour of bail.

[7]	This Court agrees with the State that the group has displayed from the outset a disrespect for authority and the "international" flavor of this enterprise causes the court to be concerned as to the possibility of flight should the accused be allowed to be on bail.

[8]	The penalty for this crime is 12 years, or 20 years if the State later see fit to charge the more appropriate "aggravated trafficking" under s.116(1)(a). Such a long term of imprisonment if a conviction is entered would certainly create the possibility of flight.

[9]	There is a suggestion in the evidence obtained in respect of the applicant's co-accused that the whole operation was part of a mafia or triad operation or at least part of an organized crime enterprise. If that be the case, then there will be other elements at large who will want to and who will assist any suspects on bail to flee the jurisdiction.

[10]	There are too many areas of concern in this case to risk admitting the applicant to bail.

[11]	The application is refused.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Suva
12th October 2012