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

Raikadroka v State [2013] FJHC 87; HAM052.2013 (6 March 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM052 of 2013

BETWEEN:

INOKE RAIKADROKA
Applicant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

BEFORE : THE HON. JUSTICE PAUL MADIGAN

Counsel : Mr. A. Ravindra-Singh (L.A.C) for the applicant
Ms M. Fong for the State

Date of hearing : 5 March 2013
Date of ruling : 6 March 2013

RULING

[1] The applicant applies for bail pending trial. He has been charged with 2 counts of living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to sections 230(1)(a) and (2) of the Crimes Decree 2009 and 3 counts of Domestic Trafficking in Children contrary to sections 117(1)(a), (1)(b) and 1(c)(i) of that Decree. The substantive case is presently before this Court in the early stage of proceedings where pre-trial issues are being dealt with.

[2] In support of the application, counsel for the applicant submits that the case being in a very early stage before this Court, it cannot be said that the evidence is strong because neither the applicant nor his counsel have seen what evidence there is. He submits that the investigations are still proceeding and that there is no guarantee that the investigations will conclude any time soon. He suspects that his client will be in remand for a long time before the matter is tried. He submits that any misgivings that the State might have with regard to contact with witnesses can be easily cured by the laying down of strict conditions on the award of bail.

[3] The accused proposes his aunt as security – an aunt who has raised him and has been more as a mother to him in the past.

[4] The applicant claims to be homosexual but Mr. Ravindra-Singh concedes that his client's sexuality is of no relevance to the application.

[5] When the Court asked if there were any previous convictions, the applicant himself stated loudly that he had no previous convictions.

[6] Counsel submits in the round that the State has acted too precipitously in these proceedings and that with the prospect of a long time in prison before trial and without the evidence against his client being substantiated, then he should be admitted to bail pending trial.

[7] Ms Fong in reply stresses the seriousness of the charge which, if leading to a conviction, will attract a very lengthy term of imprisonment. She also relies on the fact that the charges are novel for Fiji and that, involving the trafficking of children, it is in the public interest that the applicant be kept safe both for his own benefit and for the purposes of trial.

[8] It may well be that this application is premature, the applicant not knowing the full extent of the evidence against him. However in the light of the right of any person to apply for bail at any time, the lack of established evidence can only be in his favour. The length of time he may have to spend in custody is also a factor in his favour.

[9] A very disturbing factor in this application was at the hearing when Counsel for the State suggested that there might have been a previous conviction against the applicant in Navua in 2012 for robbery. Despite having loudly told the Court that he had no previous convictions, the applicant then admitted that he did have a previous for robbery but "got confused" because he had never been to prison before.

[10] The Court is of the view that there was no confusion whatsoever and that he intentionally misled the Court. Absent any reason to rebut the presumption in favour of bail, the Court must give much weight to the question of whether the applicant will surrender to custody and report to Court. An applicant found lying to the Court does not give confidence that he will respect authority and report when his case is called and present himself for trial.

[11] Despite his Counsel's valiant and persuasive attempts to persuade the Court that he should be admitted to bail, this applicant's mendacity has defeated him and the application for bail is refused.

[12] It may well be that after the information is presented and the disclosures served, then another more honest application will be considered.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Suva
6 March 2013