State v Ramuwai [2005] FJHC 190; HAM0045D.2005S (18 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Criminal Misc. Case No: HAM0045 of 2005S

STATE

v.

SENIVALATI RAMUWAI; and
RUPENI NIUDAMU NAISORO

Hearing: 15th July 2005
Ruling: 18th July 2005

Counsel: Mr. D. Toganivalu for State
Ms B. Malimali for Accused

RULING ON BAIL

The Applicant applies for bail pending trial. He is jointly charged, with Rupeni Niudamu Naisoro, with the murder of Navneet Kumar Singh on the 29th of April 2005. His co-accused Rupeni Niudamu Naisoro, was granted bail on strict conditions, one of which was that he must not go to Korovou until his trial is over, and must remain at Kuku Village, Nausori.

The grounds on which this application is made, are that he will not go to Korovou Town whilst on bail, that he will remain with his brother, who is a teacher at Fulton College, that he will report regularly to the Waidalice Police Station, and that he will appear in court when required and will not interfere with witnesses.

The State objects to bail. State counsel relied on the affidavit of D/Cpl. Vijayandra Nand, which set out the circumstances of the alleged offending and of the Applicant. The affidavit states that the Applicant has been in remand since the 5th of May 2005 when he was arrested for the offence. He has 11 previous convictions dating from 1984. The last is in July 2004, for being found in possession of dangerous drugs. There are several breaking and entry convictions in his record. The basis of the prosecution case is the Applicant’s confession to the police, and the evidence of one Moape Kadavu, a witness who has already given two inconsistent statements to the police. The State says that the Applicant should be remanded pending trial in the public interest.

The Applicant has a right to bail. It is for the prosecution to rebut the presumption in favour of bail, by pointing to factors, which might persuade the court that bail should be refused. The fact that the Applicant has previous convictions is relevant to the question of whether he is likely to appear in court when ordered to do so. In this case, apart from the three drug offences, there is nothing in his list of convictions, which suggest that he will not abide by his bail conditions. This trial will now proceed in March 2006. The delay is unfortunate, but it is caused by the shortage of judges in the criminal division of the High Court. It is not the Applicant’s fault. A delay of this nature would mean that he would have to be kept in custody for a further 9 months.

I accept the State’s concerns about possible interference with witnesses. However, that concern can be met by a strict order that the Applicant remain at Fulton College under his brother’s supervision, and that he may only leave the premises to report twice weekly at the Waidalice Police Station. Any evidence that he has contacted the prosecution witnesses in any way, or has left Fulton College will lead to immediate revocation of bail. Finally, any evidence of drug use, or handling will also lead to immediate revocation of bail.

Bail is therefore granted on the following conditions:

1. Reporting Mondays and Fridays, 6am to 6pm at the Waidalice Police Post.
   
2. The Applicant must remain at Fulton College and must not leave the premises except to report to the Police Post.
   
3. His brother Timoci Ramuwai, of Tailevu North College, and resident at the Fulton College compound is the surety in the sum of $500.
   
4. The Applicant must not contact any prosecution witness in the case.
   
5. The Applicant must attend court when ordered to do so by the court.
   
6. The Applicant must not re-offend whilst on bail.
   

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
18th July 2005