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

State v Namua [2010] FJMC 15; Criminal Case 09.2010 (26 February 2010)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: 09 of 2010

STATE

V

OSEA NAMUA

For Prosecution: Inspector Harish
Accused Counsel: Mr. Rabuku

BAIL RULING

1. You, OSEA NAMUA, made this bail application through your counsel Mr. Rabuku and asked for a written ruling.

2. According to sec. 14 (1) of the Bail Act No. 26 of 2002, accused person can make any number of bail applications as long as they are not frivolous or vexatious.

3. According to sec. 30 (7) of the Bail Act, the court which is reviving the bail application have to satisfy that there are special facts or circumstances to justify the review or fresh bail application.

4. Following grounds set out as grounds for seeking bail by your counsel.

a). Your stayed away from trouble for one year.

b). You are denying the charge.

c). There should be some form of evidence to justify that you are a threat to society.

5. Court has previously refused bail on the following facts mentioned by the prosecution.

a). Accused has 28 previous convictions.

b). In this case, there are 04 counts of Robbery with Violence and seriousness of charges.

c). Accused is known for committing similar offences.

d). Accused is previously known for absconding bail.

6. Considering all the above-mentioned facts, this court has formed an opinion that this accused is a serious threat to the protection of the community.

7. None of the facts placed by the prosecutor had been denied either by you or your counsel. Only thing mentioned by your counsel is that there should be some form of evidence to justify that you are a threat to the society.

8. It is an established fact that you have been convicted by various courts of Fiji for 28 occasions. That simply mean you have committed all those alleged offences and prosecution had beyond reasonable doubt proved your culpability. On all those 28 occasions you have put some innocent persons’ lives to danger.

9. Even though you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, your criminal history shows that you are a serious threat to the protection of the community. All those robberies you were convicted are associated with violence and in the present case also the situation is same. If this is not good evidence for me to consider you as serious threat to society, I am at a loss to understand what more I shall consider.

10. Apart from this, you are known for absconding bail as well. This again is another reason for me to refuse bail.

11. You have never stopped committing offences after your first conviction. Your 28 previous convictions are the best evidence for your criminal behaviour. Therefore I am of the view that it is highly unlikely that you would not commit another offence if enlarged on bail. Staying out of trouble for one year does not prove anything for a person with 28 previous convictions.

12. Maximum penalty for "Robbery with Violence" is life imprisonment. With your history and seriousness of the present case, if you get convicted, it is likely that you would receive at least 14 years imprisonment term.

13. According to the above-mentioned grounds I refuse granting bail.

14. 28 days to appeal.

On this Friday the 26th day of February 2010.

Kaweendra Nanayakkara
Resident Magistrate