State v Radule [2005] FJHC 147; HAC0043Y.2004S (20 June 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0043 of 2004S

STATE

v.

URAIA RADULE;
JOSEFA MAVOA; and
MATEO TALEA

Hearing: 17th June 2005
Ruling: 20th June 2005

Counsel: Mr. D. Toganivalu for State
Ms B. Malimali for 1st Accused
2nd & 3rd Accused in Person

BAIL RULING

The trial in this case, on one count of murder and a second of robbery with violence, commences on the 26th of September 2005. The applications for legal aid, for the 2nd and 3rd Accused, are currently being assessed.

The 2nd and 3rd Accused make a further application for bail. Their main ground is the conditions of custody. They both say that they are kept in the Sacau Dormitory, but that it is so over-crowded that it has become inhumane and degrading. They say that the dormitory should only house 26 men, but that 52 inmates are currently detained there.

Both Applicants have been in remand for 7 months. At the time of trial, they will have been in custody for a total of 10 months.

Counsel for the State expressed a degree of justifiable frustration about prison conditions. He said that despite several attempts to inform the Prison Authorities about the seriousness of the matter, there has been no discernable change in the circumstances at Korovou Prison.

However, he said that the Sacau Dormitory generally satisfied the UN Minimum Standard Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners, the trial is now due to start in September, and the offences charged are serious.

In an earlier bail application, State counsel said that the Applicants would return to the very area where the offences were alleged to have been committed, and where many of the witnesses continue to live.

For the same reasons I gave in my earlier ruling of 29th March 2005, I refuse bail. I continue to deprecate the conditions of custody at Korovou Prison. However the Applicants are held in the Dormitory and not in the cells of the Awaiting Trial Block. Thus, the conditions of custody constitute one of the factors, listed in section 19 of the Bail Act, to be balanced with all other factors.

In this case therefore, I am satisfied that there are strong public interest factors which justify the continued remand of the Applicants. Bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
Judge

At Suva
20th June 2005