Tabua v The State - ruling on bail [2004] FJHC 498; HAA0105.2004L (29 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0105 OF 2004L

RAVUAMA TABUA
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Mr. K. Qoro for the appellant.
Mr. K. Tunidau for the respondent.

Hearing & Ruling: 29 October 2004

EXTEMPORE RULING ON BAIL

The appellant applies for bail. His appeal having been allowed and remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-hearing.

The application for bail is opposed by the State. In considering an application for bail pursuant to Bail Act, the court is required to consider the matters that arise under section 17 of that Act.

The primary consideration being the likelihood of the accused person appearing to answer the charges laid against him.

The applicant in this matter is alleged to have committed the offence of robbery with violence on the 11^th June 2004 in company with another person.

The facts that appear before me as presented to the Learned Magistrate and acknowledged by the appellant, show that the crime was certainly pre-planned and well organized.

Robbery with violence is indeed a prevalent offence which on conviction, by virtue of the authorities, carries an immediate custodial sentence of somewhere between 6 and 10 years or even more in certain circumstances.

Whilst it is submitted that the appellant is a first offender, a crime of such seriousness carrying a jail sentence of such significance must always place some doubt as to the likelihood of the accused appearing to answer the charge.

Robbery with violence is an offence which from my observation is on numerous occasions carried out by re-offenders and that increases my reluctance to grant bail to a person accused of having committed such an offence.

In assessing the issues as detailed in section 19 of the Bail Act, whilst acknowledging that he is a first offender that there is no history of failing to attend before the court, I note that there clearly is a strong prosecution case. The offence is serious and the penalty that may ultimately be imposed would more likely than not be a lengthy custodial sentence. In the circumstances therefore, I think it is appropriate that bail be refused for the reasons I have outlined.

There is of course no objection to a further application for bail being made before the Learned Magistrate on the 19^th November 2004 or thereafter.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
29 October 2004