Nainoka v The State [2004] FJHC 226; HAM0046D.2004S (16 July 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CR. MISC. CASE NO: HAM0046 OF 2004S

Between:

PITA NAINOKA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 15th July 2004
Ruling: 16th July 2004

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr. W. Kuruisiqila for State

RULING

The Applicant applies for bail pending trial. The application is opposed by the State. The grounds for the application are that the remand facilities at the Suva Prison are overcrowded and inhumane, that the Applicant needs bail in order to obtain legal representation and that his son needs him.

His application did not disclose the offences with which he has been charged, nor the length of time he has been held in custody. State counsel similarly did not have the necessary information, although he filed the affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Prisons Peniame Salacakau. The affidavit states that the Suva Prison has enough cells to accommodate one detainee per cell but that detainees prefer to share cells, that the accommodation at the Prisons does not pose a health threat and that there is no water leakage in the remand facility.

Because of the dearth of information available to me, I called for the court record. This was speedily made available yesterday. Court file 679/04 is in respect of one count of robbery with violence and one count of unlawful use of motor vehicle. The Applicant is alleged to have robbed one Aminiasi Solomone of $66,873.47 in cash and cheques and to have used personal violence on him. He is also alleged to have unlawfully used a motor vehicle which was the property of Raffles Hotel. The charges are dated the 1st day of March 204.

In File 1504/04 the Applicant is charged with Senijieli Boila of robbing Aminiasi Solomone of $66,079.05 in cheque and cash, between the 29th of February and the 1st of March 2004 and to have unlawfully used a Raffles Hotel vehicle. Although the files appear to refer to the same incident the hearing for one is listed for the 10th of September 2004, and for the other the 14th of September 2004. The Applicant has been in custody since 11th of March 2004. He has made several applications for bail since then, but they have all been refused. On the 4th of May the prosecutor told the Court that the Applicant has escaped from the police cell that morning. He was recaptured, it appears on the 6th of May but bail was refused thereafter on that basis.

The Applicant has a right to bail pending trial. Relevant to a bail application is the public interest, the interests of the Applicant and the likelihood of appearance for trial. By the time the Applicant is tried for the offences charged, he will have been in custody for 6 months. This is not an excessively long period of time in the light of the seriousness of the offences, and the previous escape from custody.

I have considered all that the Applicant has said about the prison conditions but I am satisfied that these conditions are not inhumane or degrading. I am further satisfied that he can apply for legal aid whilst on remand, and I urge him to expedite his application with the Legal Aid Commission. Finally I have taken into account the fact that he has a dependent child, but consider that the child is in the safe hands of his mother and grandmother in Kinoya.

In all the circumstances I consider that bail should be refused. The Applicant may appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal, and may also make subsequent applications in the Magistrates’ Courts.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
16th July 2004