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

Vakarise v State [2017] FJMC 37; Criminal Case 2084.2016 (8 March 2017)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 2084/2016

BETWEEN : JONE VAKARISE

APPPLICANT

AND : THE STATE

RESPONDENT

Counsel: Mr.Rawaya for the Applicant

Ms. B. Kantharia for the Respondent

Date of Ruling : 08^th of March 2017

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant is charged with one count of Criminal Trespass, one count of Damaging Property and one count of Act with Intended to cause Grievous Harm contrary to various provisions under the Crimes Decree.
2. His previous bail application has been rejected by this court (ruling dated 22^ndDecember 2016).
3. The applicant on 10^th February 2017 filed a notice of motion with an affidavit in support of his wife seeking bail again. The wife in her affidavit deposed that the applicant is the sole bread winner of the family and they need him to run the family business. The applicant is willing to provide sureties.
4. The State is objecting to application and in their submission argued that there is possibility of the applicant reoffending if granted bail again and also interfering with witnesses.
5. Section 14 of the Bail Act (“Act”) states that the accused person may make any number of bail applications to the court.
6. Part VIII of the Act deals with the review of the bail and section 30(2) states a court can review its own bail decision or another court decision.
7. But when reviewing or hearing a new bail application, the court has to satisfy there are special facts or circumstances that justify a review or hearing the new application (section 30(7) of the Act).
8. If the court is not satisfied, the court can refuse to hear the application.
9. Having considered the applicable law in the above manner, now I turn to this application. The main grounds for this fresh application are sole bread winner and difficulty about running the family business.
10. But as correctly submitted by the learned state counsel no specific details are given about the children or the business. Further no proper description is given about the proposed sureties or their relationship to the applicant.
11. Further in my view these are not new grounds to consider in this application. Even though in previous bail application these grounds were not submitted when refusing bail I have considered the hardships that would be faced by the family of the applicant.
12. I can’t ignore the fact that after being granted bail by the High Court on 29^th November 2016 he appeared before me again on 11^th December 2016, just within 12 days for a similar offence. Also during the bail hearing the State has brought my attention that the applicant got a pending matter in MC 5 (CF 829/2013) again for similar offence. This clearly demonstrates the propensity of committing these kinds of offences. Previous bail application the applicant informed that he was prepared to relocate to another place. But this time he has failed to make that undertaking also.
13. With this history of the applicant granting bail would be clearly detrimental to the public interest.
14. Hence I find there are no special reasons to reconsider my previous bail ruling. Accordingly Idismiss this bail applicationalso and remand the applicant further in this case.
15. 28 days to appeal

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate