Tak Sang Hao v The State [2001] FJHC 49; HAM0013d.2001s (24 July 2001)

Fiji Islands - Tak Sang Hao v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO: HAM 013 OF 2001S

BETWEEN:

TAK SANG HAO

Applicant

AND:

THE STATE

Respondent

Mr M. Raza for Applicant

Mr J. Naiguler Respondent

Hearing: 18th July 2001

Ruling: 24th July 2001

RULING ON BAIL

This is a further application for bail by the Applicant Tak Sang Hao. He is charged, on Information before the High Court, on the following counts:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES: Contrary to sections 16, 41(a) and 41(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Cap 114.

Particulars of Offence

WONG KAM HONG, TAK SANG HAO also known as BILL HAO and SHI JIE also known as SHI KIT between 19th day of November 1999 and 28th day of October 2000 at Suva in the Central Division, imported into Fiji dangerous substances namely Diacetylmorphine otherwise known as heroin weighing approximately nett 357.1875 kilograms without lawful authority.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

FOUND IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS: Contrary to sections 22 and 41(2)41(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Cap 114.

Particulars of Offence

WONG KAM HONG and TAK SANG HAO also known as BILL HAO between 13th daypril 2000 and 28th day of October 2000 at Suva in the CentrCentral Division, were found in possession of a quantity of certain dangerous drugs namely Diacetylmorphine otherwise known as heroin weighing approximately nett 357.1875 kilograms, without lawful authority.

THIRD COUNT

b>

ass=MsoN=MsoNormal style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Statement of Offence

ATTEMPT TO EXPORT CERTAIN DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE: Con to sections 16, 41(1)(a) a(a) and 41(2) of the Dangerous Drug Act 114 and section 381 of the Penal Code Cap 17.

Particulars of Offence

WONG KAM HONG and TAK SANG HONG also known as BILL HAOhe 28th day of October 2000 at Suva in the Central Divisionision attempted to export to Australia, a quantity of dangerous substance, namely Diacetylmorphine otherwise known as heroin weighing approximately nett 35 kilograms, without lawful authority.

A trial date will be allocated in the next week, and the court has provisionally marff October 9th and thereafter for the hearing.

On 26th April 2001, the Applicant made a bail application which I refused on the ground that there was a substantial risk that if released, the Applicant would not appear at the trial. In coming to this conclusion, I considered the evidence of the Applicant’s business interests in Fiji as compared with his business interests abroad, his family ties in Fiji, his association with persons who have been found in possession of false travel documents, the fact that there is an on-going investigation into the importation, sale and exportation of large amounts of heroin in the region, and previous refusals of bail.

This application is now made on the basis that the Respondent misled the court as to the extent of the Applicant’s business interestsad, and on the basis that that the Applicant could not leave the country with ease as the Respondent suggests.

The Applicant relies on the affidavits of Quisite Haolum (the Applicant’s wife) and the affidavitJerry Tikaram, Hon Ruiru and an affidavit of Kuan Cheong Yang Yap which is annexed to the affidavit of Quisite Haolum.

Quisite Haolum and Kuan Cheong Yap depose that much of the business interests which the Aant had in the USA, China and New Zealand have been sold orld or are running at losses. They say that the New Zealand interests in particular are limited to a minority interest in Dickson Group Limited which has a current operating loss in its latest annual statement, and ownership of a unit in New Lynn, Auckland.

In response, the Respondent filed the affidavits of Sharon McTavish, a Federal Agent with the Australian Federal Police and ASP Josese Lako of the Fiji Police. Both affidavits say that the details of the claims made by the Applicant as to the extent of his business interests could not be checked because of the short time frame available, but that the Applicant does have business interests abroad. ASP Lako refers to two active companies in California, and the Applicant’s current permanent residence status in the USA, and his current business visa allowing him to enter New Zealand.

Sharon McTavish states that the Applicant is able to enter China and Hong Kong, that he has links to people who are involved in the production and distribution of false travel documents, and that the Applicant has business interests in Hong Kong and New Zealand.

Directing myself in accordance with the principles governing bail in my earlier ruling of 26th Apr01, the Respondent has satisfied me that although the AppliApplicant’s visas to America and New Zealand are due to expire shortly, there is a substantial risk that he will fail to appear to stand trial if he is granted bail. This decision is based on the Applicant’s own concession that he has some business interests abroad (the exact extent of them being in dispute), his ability to travel to other countries, his association with persons who have been found to be in possession of false travel documents, and the evidence that this is part of a bigger investigation into organised drug trafficking in the region.

For these reasons, this Application is refused.

Nazhat Shameem

JUDGE

At Suva

24th July 2001

Ham0013d.01s