IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 091 OF 2015S

BETWEEN				ANARE BAI
									APPLICANT

AND					THE STATE
									RESPONDENT

Counsels		:	Ms. M. Tarai for Applicant
				Mr. M. Vosawale for Respondent
Hearing		:	 8 October, 2015
Ruling			:	 3 December, 2015
Written Reason	:	29 April, 2016

WRITTEN REASONS FOR DENYING BAIL

1.	In Suva High Court Criminal Case HAC 050 of 2015S, the applicant (accused) faced the following information:

COUNT ONE
Statement of Offence

UNLAWFUL CULTIVATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS:  Contrary to Section 5 (a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004.

Particulars of Offence
ANARE BAI on the 18th day of January 2015, at Rakiraki Village, Kadavu, in the Southern Division, without lawful authority cultivated approximately 227 plants of cannabis sativa an illicit drug, weighing approximately 20.3 kilograms.

COUNT TWO
Statement of Offence

DEFEATING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE:  Contrary to Section 190 (e) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence
ANARE BAI between the 11th day of January 2015 to the 18th day of January 2015 at Rakiraki Village, Kadavu in the Southern Division attempted to defeat the course of justice namely by burning approximately 100 cannabis sativa plants intending that it will not be seized by police during investigations.

2.	He first appeared in the Kadavu Magistrate Court on 24 January 2015.  He had been remanded in custody since then.  So, he had spent approximately 1 year 3 months 5 days in custody.  On 9 June 2015, he applied for bail pending trial using the standard High Court Bail Application Form for unrepresented litigants.  The prosecution opposed bail.  They filed an affidavit in reply on 1 July, 2015.

3.	I heard the parties on 8 October 2015.  On 3 December 2015, I declined the accused’s bail application, and I said I would give my written reasons later.  Below are my reasons.

4.	It was well settled that an accused person was entitled to bail pending trial unless the interest of justice requires otherwise.  The test of the grant of bail was whether or not the accused will turn up to court on the date set for his trial.  In deciding the above issue, the court was bound to consider the factors laid out in Section 19 of the Bail Act 2002.

Factor No. 1:  Likelihood of Accused’s Surrender to Custody:
5.	The accused is 55 years old.  He reached Class 6 level education.  He is a farmer, and plants cassava, dalo and yaqona.  He lived alone in his farm.  According to prosecution, they had a strong case against him.  He allegedly admitted the offence to police when caution interviewed on 18 January 2015.  If found guilty after trial, he faces a possible prison sentence of 14 years and up.  Under this head, his chances of bail are slim.

Factor No. 2:  The Interest of the Accused:
6.	The accused will be tried from 16 to 20 May 2016, that is, two weeks away.  Time spent in remand will be deducted from his final sentence, if he’s found guilty after trial.  He is presently remanded in the new Suva Remand Centre.  He is represented by Legal Aid Lawyers, and they can visit him in custody, as and when they pleases.  There does not appear to be any reasons for him to be at liberty for other lawful reasons.  He is not incapacitated.  Under this head, the accused’s chances of bail are slim.

Factor No. 3:  Public Interest and the Protection of the Community:
7.	The allegations against the accused were very serious.  It was alleged that he cultivated 20.3 kg of cannabis sativa plants and tried to burn his other cannabis sativa plants so that the police wouldn’t find the same.  The evils of drugs had been highlighted in numerous publications.  Although the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, in my view, it is in the public interest and the protection of the community that he be remanded in custody until further orders of the court.  Under this head, the accused’s chances of bail are slim.

Conclusion:
8.	It was for the above reasons that I denied the accused’s bail application on 3 December, 2015.

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for Applicant		:	Legal Aid Commission, Suva
Solicitor for Respondent	:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.