Boila v The State [2004] FJHC 230; HAM0041D.2004S (27 July 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Criminal Misc. Case No. HAM0041 of 2004S

Between:

SENIJIELI BOILA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 16th July 2004
Ruling: 27th July 2004

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Ms P. Madanavosa for State

BAIL RULING

The Applicant applies for bail pending trial. He is charged with multiple counts of robbery with violence, unlawful use of motor vehicle and larceny. On one file he is alleged to have robbed one Aminiasi Solomone of $66,079.05, and on another with items to the total value of $16,800. He is jointly charged with others. The others have been refused bail. On File 1504/04, he was never granted bail. On File 2629/03 he was granted bail on conditions, on the 5th of January 2004. The conditions were for reporting, and for non-interference with police witnesses. On File No. 1995/03 he was granted bail on the conditions imposed on File 2629/03. However on the 18th of June 2004, he failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued. On File 2629/03, the Applicant did not appear on the 20th of February. However on the 27th of February, his bail was extended. On the 12th of March, he again did not appear and a bench warrant was issued. He did appear on the 19th of April 2004 and said that the reason for his non-appearance earlier was that he had been remanded in custody.

On the 5th of May 2004, he was granted bail on existing conditions. He continued to appear until the 7th of June 2004, when a bench warrant was issued. He then appeared on the 6th of July 2004 when he was remanded in custody until the 20th of July for hearing.

It appears that in the past when bail has been refused, no written reasons were given. Certainly there are none on the file. The records suggest that the Applicant was remanded because he failed to appear in court on several mention and hearing dates. It is not clear whether his non-appearance was caused by his remand on another matter. State counsel was unable to assist, because she said, that she could not gain access to the court files. This does not of course explain why she did not retrieve the information from the police dockets. On all bail applications, the court is entitled to receive full information from the prosecution about the history of the case. The burden is on the State to justify continued remand.

On a perusal of these court files, I am able to find no evidence that the Applicant has been in breach of his bail conditions. His non-appearance on some instances can be explained by his remand in other cases. The sole reason for his remand on the 22nd of June 2004, according to the affidavit of DC Jemesa Luvena, was that his co-accused had escaped from lawful custody. Why the misdeeds of the co-accused are matters for which the Applicant is now suffering is not explained. However there is no mention in the court record of the escape of the co-accused as a ground for remand. The only reason given, for the 22nd of June 2004, is the seriousness of the offence. These are insufficient grounds to justify continued remand. The Applicant has not been in breach of his bail conditions. His conviction for escaping from lawful custody is now 5 years old. His trial has been transferred to the High Court and because the criminal court diaries for 2004 are now full, his trial will not be heard until early 2005. This involves a wait of a further 6 months.

He is released on bail on the following conditions:

1. He must report thrice weekly on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at the Kinoya Police Post;
   
2. He must not interfere with witnesses;
   
3. He must provide a surety in the sum of $500.00 before he is released;
   
4. He must not change his residential address without notifying the Police Post at Kinoya.
   

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
27th July 2004