IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 82 of 2013

Maika Vakatawabai
[Applicant]

.v.

State
[Respondent]

For Prosecution/State: Ms J. Prasad (DPP's)
Applicant/Accused : Present 

BAIL RULING

Introduction

This is an application for bail by the accused. The accused has been remanded in custody since February 2013. His previous bail application was refused by this Court.

The accused has now been in custody for over 1 year and 9 months. This Prosecution case has concluded and the defence is to present its case. 

Section 3(1) of the Bail Act provides that an accused has the right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interests of justice that bail should be granted. Consistent with this principle, section 3(3) of the Act provides that there is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to a person, but a person who opposes the granting of bail may seek to rebut the presumption. In determining whether a presumption is rebutted, the primary consideration in deciding whether to grant bail is the likelihood of the accused person appearing in court to answer the charges laid against him or her (section 17(2)).

Where bail is opposed, Section 18(1) of the Bail Act requires that the party opposing bail address the following three considerations:

(a) the likelihood of the accused person surrendering to custody and appearing in court;
(b) the interests of the accused person;
(c) the public interest and the protection of the community.

Section 19(1) of the Bail Act provides that an accused person must be granted bail by a court unless:

(a) the accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;
(b) the interests of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or
(c) granting bail  to the accused person would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.

Section 19 (2) of the Act sets out a series of considerations that the court must take into account in determining whether or not any of the three matters mentioned in section 19 (1) are established. These matters are:

(a) as regards the likelihood of surrender to custody –

(i) the accused person's background and community ties (including residence, employment, family situation, previous criminal history);
(ii) any previous failure by the person to surrender to custody or to observe bail  conditions;
(iii) the circumstances, nature and seriousness of the offence;
(iv) the strength of the prosecution case;
(v) the severity of the likely penalty if the person is found guilty;
(vi) any specific indications (such as that the person voluntarily surrendered to the police at the time of arrest, or, as a contrary indication, was arrested trying to flee the country);

(b) as regards the interests of the accused person –

(i) the length of time the person is likely to have to remain in custody before the case is heard;
(ii) the conditions of that custody;
(iii) the need for the person to obtain legal advice and to prepare a defence;
(iv) the need for the person to beat liberty for other lawful purposes (such as employment, education, care of dependants);
(v) whether the person is under the age of 18 years (in which case section 3(5) applies);
(vi) whether the person is incapacitated by injury or intoxication or otherwise in danger or in need of physical protection;

(c) as regards the public interest and the protection of the community –

(i) any previous failure by the accused person to surrender to custody or to observe bail  conditions;
(ii) the likelihood of the person interfering with evidence, witnesses or assessors or any specially affected person;
(iii) the likelihood of the accused person committing an arrestable offence while on bail .

In addition to these matters, the court must also bear in mind the presumption of innocence. This is that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Court. 
In this application the State opposes bail. The State states that the applicant has previous history of resisting arrest, absconding bail, escaping from lawful custody and forfeiture of bail bond.

The applicant has stated in his letter the length of time he has been remanded and his family obligation. 

The Court has noted the law on Bail and the submissions by the applicant and the prosecution. This Court has perused the Court records and noted the reasons for the delays in completing the hearing for this accused. The matter is part heard and is a priority for this Court. The prosecution case has been concluded. Court has ruled case to answer. It is now for the defence case. 

Having considered the application, The Court is satisfied that the applicant is a flight risk. He has previous history of absconding bail. Having considered all matters and in the interest of justice this Court is not satisfied that the accused be granted bail. 

This Court would now set continuation of the hearing of this case and wishes to see that this matter be heard within the next month. Accused is remanded in custody until hearing is completed. Bail is refused. The applicant is advised that of his right to appeal this decision to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
Suva
18th November 2014