State v Dreu [2004] FJHC 143; HAC0023D.2004S (23 August 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0023 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

THE STATE
Respondent

v.

KELEMEDI DREU
Applicant

Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu - For the State

RULING ON BAIL PENDING TRIAL

The Applicant is charged jointly with two other persons with a total of five counts. He is alleged to have committed robbery with violence on two counts, attempted robbery on one count, unlawful use of motor vehicle on one count and larceny on one count. Four of the five counts relate to events on the 13th of April 2004.

He first appeared in custody on 15th of June 2004 and applied for bail. The prosecution objected on the grounds that the offences were serious, that he had 10 previous convictions, that a bench warrant had been issued for him by the Rakiraki Magistrate’s Court and that he would interfere with prosecution witnesses.

Bail was refused, the case was transferred to the High Court for trial on the 12th of August. The Applicant now makes a further application for bail. He makes it in writing and verbally. He says that he will abide by any conditions imposed by the court, that he needs to instruct counsel to defend him, that he has now been in custody for 4 months, that his family needs him because he is the only breadwinner and that a number of other persons had been granted bail by the courts despite the seriousness of the offences charged.

State counsel opposed bail saying that the Applicant is unrepresented, that he has failed to surrender to custody in the past, and that there is still a pending bench warrant in relation to one such failure issued in the Rakiraki Magistrate’s Court. Counsel further said that the Applicant had already made an application for legal aid whilst in custody and that he would instruct counsel from the remand centre. Lastly he said that with his previous failure to surrender to custody it was not in the public intent to release him on bail.

It is impossible to say, without service of disclosure of witness statements, how long this trial will take. My own diary is now full until the legal vacation but there is a possibility that one of the other two criminal judges will be able to hear this case later this year. The trial is however unlikely to proceed in the next two months. When it does proceed, the Applicant will have been in custody for more than 6 months. This is undesirable and I would have been inclined to grant bail, had it not been for the Applicant’s failure to attend his court hearing in Rakiraki. A bench warrant was issued. When I asked the Applicant why he had failed to attend, he said he was confused about the date and that when he attended court he was told that his case had already been called. He did not inform the Registry of his appearance, nor did he make any enquiry as to the next court date. In fact, I am told by the Registry that the prosecution has now withdrawn the charges against the Applicant in Rakiraki. The Applicant himself has not taken any steps to find out about the progress of his case.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that he should not be granted bail, and that he is unlikely to surrender to custody.

Bail is refused, and once plea is taken to the information, I will request one of the criminal judges to try to hear the case this year.

[ Nazhat Shameem ]
JUDGE

At Suva
23rd August, 2004