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

Vakarau v State [2016] FJMC 44; Criminal Case 487.2016 (11 April 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 487/2016

BETWEEN:

YAVALA BARAVILALA VAKARAU
APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

The Applicant: In person
For the Respondent: PC Shaw
Date of Ruling : 11th of April 2016

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant is charged with one count of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
   
2. He has been remanded by this Court on 21/03/2016 and upon plea of not guilty this has been fixed for hearing on 07/06/2016.
   
3. Today he filed a bail application seeking bail pending trial for following reasons:
   
   1. Sole bread winner;
   2. Family obligation;
   100. Wife is pregnant.
        
4. The Prosecution is objecting on the grounds that he would be unlikely to surrender to court if granted bail.
   
5. Section 03 of the 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.
   
6. The presumption of granting bail to a person has to be rebutted by the State.
   
7. The primary consideration in granting bail is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge(section 17(2) of the Act )
   
8. 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
        
9. 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".

10. In CF 1891/2012 the accused was given a suspend sentence for similar offence on 17/06/2014. During the operational period of that suspend sentence the accused is alleged to have commit this offence. In considering the public interest the Court can consider whether he would commit an offence whilst on bail and the allegation about re-offending during the suspend sentence would be relevant for this ground.
    
11. Further when considering the accused to appear in court I can consider his past convictions and from the record I note that he has 3 convictions for forfeiture of bail bond. This shows that he has previously breached his bail and therefore there is strong possibility he would do that future too.
    
12. Even though I am mindful that he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, with this history I do not think it is appropriate to release the accused on bail.
    
13. Therefore I refuse this bail application and further remand the applicant.
    
14. 28 days to appeal
    

Shageeth Somaratne
Resident Magistrate