Danford v The State [2005] FJHC 177; HAA0032D.2005S (11 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: HAA0032 of 2005S

Between:

AMINIASI DANFORD
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 7th July 2005
Judgment: 11th July 2005

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

BAIL RULING

The Applicant was charged with robbery with violence on 7 counts, and one count of unlawful use of motor vehicle. On the 22nd of December 2004, he was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months imprisonment. He has now appealed against conviction and sentence. His original grounds (filed in person) are that he was deprived of legal representation, that another person admitted to committing the offences in court, that the learned Magistrate was biased and inattentive and that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the convictions. Subsequently, counsel was appointed by the Legal Aid Commission, and she filed amended grounds of appeal in relation to errors in the admitting of the Applicant’s confession, the identification warning and legal representation.

The grounds for the bail application are that the appeal has obvious merits, the conditions of custody are uncomfortable, and he needs time to brief counsel. In relation to this last ground, Ms Malimali later appeared and confirmed that she would represent the Appellant. The appeal is set for hearing on the 15th of July 2005. The Appellant has served 6 months of his 8½ year term.

The grounds on which bail pending appeal may be granted are that a substantial portion of the sentence will be served when the appeal is heard, any obvious merit in the appeal, or any other exceptional ground.

The fact that the Applicant has served only 6 months of his total term of imprisonment is therefore relevant. It is not a substantial portion. Counsel certainly raises arguable grounds of appeal, particularly in relation to the admissibility of the confession, but he did not cross-examine the interviewing officer, or the charging officer in the course of trial. Of course this might have been due to ignorance of the law, but this appeal will not necessarily succeed. Further, there are good arguments in relation to alleged prejudice due to lack of legal representation, and to the identification evidence, but these grounds are not prima facie bound to succeed.

The appeal is now only 4 days away. The Applicant has raised no exceptional ground to justify bail pending appeal. It is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
11th July 2005