State v Pe [2004] FJHC 142; HAC0024Y.2004S (23 August 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC0024 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

v.

SAVENACA PE

Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu - For the State
In Person - Accused

RULING ON BAIL PENDING TRIAL

The Applicant is charged with robbery with violence on one count, being in possession of firearm without a licence on one count and using firearms without licence on one count. All offences are alleged to have been committed on the 14th of February 2004. The Applicant is alleged to have robbed the New World Supermarket of $63,781.00.

Charges were laid on the 19th of July 2004 and the Applicant elected High Court trial. He applied for bail in the Magistrates Court but his application was refused on the grounds that he had a history of escaping from lawful custody and that there was a large sum of money yet to be recorded. He was then remanded to appear in the High Court on the 20th of August.

He now applies for bail on the grounds that his last conviction for escaping from lawful custody was 71/2 years ago, that the seriousness of the offence was not a good reason to refuse bail, that he is the sole breadwinner in his family and supports an elderly mother and two children both of whom are at school, and that he has a regular job as a shopkeeper. He said he had two other pending cases, both before the Suva Magistrates Court. One is on a charge of being in possession of drugs, and the other is for official corruption. He has been granted bail on both these cases.

The State opposes bail. Counsel says that the Applicant has 38 previous convictions and that ten of these were for escaping from lawful custody. The last conviction for escaping was in 1996. He further said that the offences before the High court were allegedly committed whilst he was on bail for other pending cases.

The Applicant has a right to bail but the presumption in favour of bail can be rebutted by the State on the several grounds set out in Section 19 of the Bail Act. One of these grounds is that the Applicant is unlikely to surrender to custody. The seriousness of the offence or offences is no longer sufficient reason to oppose bail on its own, although it is certainly relevant. The most important question is whether the Applicant will appear in court to face trial.

In this case, with 38 previous convictions, including ten for escaping from lawful custody, the Applicant’s right to bail is offset by his previous record. I accept that his last conviction for escaping was 8 years ago, and would have been prepared to ignore it, if it had not been for his 9 other convictions for escaping. It is not in the public interest to grant bail. To prevent a long period in custody, I am placing this case on the standby list of pending cases in the High Court, to be heard urgently by any of the criminal judges this year.

Bail is refused.

[ Nazhat Shameem ]
JUDGE

At Suva
23rd August 2004