IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 181/2014

BETWEEN:

PENISONI SAUKELEA
METUISELA TUINARO
APPPLICANTS

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Ms. David ( Legal Aid) for both Applicants 
Ms. Elo for the State 

Date of Hearing : 15th May 2014
Date of Ruling : 15th May 2014

RULING ON BAIL

1.	The applicants are charged with one count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311(1) (a) of The Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009. 

2.	Both applicants are applying for bail pending trial. The reasons are as follows. 

PENISONI SAUKELEA
a.	He has been in remand for more than two months
b.	Married with 2 daughters and looking after the 14 months old daughter whilst the wife works.

METUISELA TUINARO 
a.	Looking after his elderly mother 
b.	Got a farm to look after. 
c.	No history of absconding bail 

3.	The State filed the affidavit of Detective Sergeant 2121 Sakesi the investigating officer in response . In that IO deposed that both accused were identified by witnesses and also they admitted the offence in their caution interviews. Also the state submitted that the daughter of the 1st applicant is looked after by his mother and other relatives. IO also annexed the previous conviction list of 1st applicant as an exhibit. 

4.	 Section 03 of the Bail Act of 2002 provides that the accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted. The presumption of granting bail to a person could be rebutted by the party who oppose to it and in this case the State has to rebut that. 

5.	 Section 17(2) of the Act stipulates that the primary consideration in granting bail is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge. 

6.	Section 19(1) of the Bail Act outlines the reasons for refusing bail and they are as follows:-

a.	The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;

b.	The interest of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or 

c.	Granting bail to the accused would endanger the public interest or make protection of the community more difficult

7.	In Isimeli Wakaniyasi v State ( 2010),FJHC 20;HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010), his Lordship Justice Goundar held that "All three grounds need not exist to justify refusal of bail, existence of any one grounds is sufficient to refuse bail".

8.	 I have considered the bail application and the response filed by the State. For the second applicant I find that main ground to refuse bail is the seriousness of the offence. But as noted by his Lordship Justice Kumararatnam in Vueti V State [2013]FJHC 637 that is not enough. The applicant is a first offender with no history of absconding bail or breaching bail. 

9.	Based on the reasons above, I am not satisfied that the prosecution has satisfied any of the grounds mentioned in section 19(1) of the Bail Act with regard to the 2nd applicant . 

10.	Therefore subject to following conditions I grant bail to the 2nd Applicant. 

a.	Bail in his own recognizance in the sum of $500

b.	With two sureties in the sum of $300 each

c.	Not to interfere with the complainant and other witnesses

d.	Not to reoffend 

e.	Report to nearest Police Station every Saturday between 8am to 6pm. 

f.	Surrender his passport and other travel documents to the registry. 

g.	Any breach of these conditions is likely to result in cancelation of his bail

11.	For the 1st applicant I note that the State has a strong case . Also he has previous convictions with a one conviction for escaping from lawful custody and one conviction for forfeiter of bail bond in addition to other convictions for similar kind of offences.

12.	Therefore considering the likelihood of the appearing in custody as well as the public interest I refuse bail to the 1st applicant. 

13.	28 days to appeal 

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva