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

Vakarisi v State [2016] FJMC 246; Criminal Case 2084 of 2016 (23 December 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 2084/2016

BETWEEN : JONE VAKARISI

APPPLICANT

AND : THE STATE

RESPONDENT

For the Applicant: Mr.Rawaya

For the Respondent: Cpl Shaw

Date of Hearing: 22^nd of December 2016

Date of Ruling : 23^rd of December 2016

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant is charged with one count of Criminal Trespass, one count of Damaging Property, one count ofAct intended to cause Grievous Harm and one count ofCriminal Intimidation contrary to various provisions of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
2. He was produced to this Court on 21/12/2016 and I have transferred this case to the High Court pursuant to section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Decree as the second count is an Indictable offence.
3. In the meantime the learned counsel for the applicant applied bail in this court and submitted that his client is willing to abide with strict bail conditions and he needs to be granted bail to spend the Christmas with the family.
4. The respondent is objecting for the bail because the applicant has reoffended during the bail period.
5. Having considered the respective submissions of the parties, now I proceed to pronounce my ruling in this case.
6. Section 13(1) (h) of the 2013 Constitution states that a person who is arrested or detained has right to be released on reasonable terms and conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless the interests of justice otherwise require.
7. Therefore an accused has right to be released on bail and this can be refused only when the interest of justice require.
8. Section 03 of the Bail Act of 2002(“Act”) 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. Section 3(3) states that there is a presumption of granting bail to the accused and person who opposing it has to rebut that.
9. But this presumptionwill be displaced if an accused has previously breached a bail condition or convicted for an offence and appealing against the conviction (Section 3(4) of the Act).
10. The primary consideration in granting bail in a criminal case is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge(section 17(2) of the Act )
11. Section 19(1) of the Act outlines the reasons for refusing bail and they are as follows:-
    1. The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;
    2. The interest of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or
    100. Granting bail to the accused would endanger the public interest or make protection of the community more difficult
12. In IsimeliWakaniyasi 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".
13. The respondent submitted that the accused has reoffended during the bail. But the counsel for the applicant is arguing that his client is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty which is consistent with Article 14(2) (a) of the 2013 Constitution.
14. But at the bail hearing I do not have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed this offence whilst on bail from another case. That stage is coming only at the trial stage when I have to give the judgment.
15. The applicant was granted bail by the High Court, after I refused bail in a previous case. During this bail period he has come to this Court charged with another case. Therefore it appears that he has breached his bail conditions and presumption of bail is not applicable to him. Also it appears that the complainants in this case and the one in High Court are same. This shows that he has also interfered with the witnesses in the high court case breaching another bail condition.
16. The prosecution also informed this court that the victims and the accused are neighbors. Even though the counsel for the applicant informed that his client is willing to reside in another place to minimize the contact, I am not satisfied that it would fully satisfied the safety of the victims.
17. Even though the applicant has no previous convictions for absconding bail and appears to be a first offender, in view of his reoffending during the bail from the High Court, interference with the same witnesses in the High Court case compel me to reject his bail based on the public interest and protection of community.
18. The applicant is remanded to appear in High Court on 20^th January 2016.
19. 28 days to appeal.

RM Shageeth Somaratne