Saqasaqa v The State [2004] FJHC 234; HAM0055D.2004S (16 August 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: HAM0055 OF 2004S

Between:

ILIASERI SAQASAQA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 12th August 2004
Ruling: 16th August 2004

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State

RULING ON BAIL PENDING APPEAL

The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment on the 2nd of July 2004 for one offence of aiding and abetting others to commit a felony, namely robbery with violence.

The Applicant now applies for bail on the grounds that his appeal is likely to succeed, and that a substantial portion of his term of imprisonment will have been served when his appeal is heard. In an application for bail pending appeal, the presumption in favour of bail is displaced, and it is for the Applicant to show the court why bail should be granted. The State opposes bail on the ground that the Applicant has not shown that he has clearly meritorious grounds of appeal, and that the appeal is not likely to be delayed.

I am unable, without the court record to assess the likely success of the appeal. However section 21 of the Penal Code allows a court to convict of the substantive charge although the evidence shows only an aiding and abetting. The Applicant says that he was only a passenger in the getaway vehicle and did nothing active to aid or abet. However, this is a question to be answered only when all the facts and evidence are before me.

As for delay, the Magistrates’ Court is required to submit to the High Court the court record, within 28 days of the filing of the petition of appeal. The High Court then sets a date for hearing within a month thereafter. The likely delay is therefore neither long nor unconscionable. A substantial portion of the sentence is unlikely to be served before the hearing of the appeal.

For these reasons, this application for bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
16th August 2004