Racule v The State [2005] FJHC 21; HAM0083D.2004S (8 February 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO: HAM 083 OF 2004S

Between:

URAIA RACULE;
JOSEFA MAVOA; and
MATEO TALEA
Applicants

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 4th February 2005
Ruling: 8th February 2005

Counsel: Mr. A. Vakaloloma for Applicants
Mr. B. Solanki for State

RULING

The three Applicants apply for bail pending trial and sentence. Although the Information filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions has two counts, one for murder and the other for robbery with violence, State counsel concedes that the second count is included in the Information in error, as are the second and third Applicants on Count 1 for murder. In fact, only the 1st Applicant has been transferred to the High Court for trial on the charge of murder. The 2nd and 3rd Applicants pleaded guilty to robbery with violence, in the Magistrates’ Court and were committed to the High Court for sentence. State counsel has informed the court that the 2nd and 3rd Applicants will also be charged with murder, transferred to the High Court, and that the cases will be the subject of an application for consolidation in the High Court. At present, only the 1st Applicant awaits trial for murder.

The 1st Applicant has been in custody since the 26th of November 2004. His trial is not likely to proceed before August 2005. Counsel said that bail should be granted on the ground of delay. State counsel opposes bail on the ground that he is charged with a serious offence and that there is a real risk that he will abscond.

The facts in relation to the connected robbery charge, were that the victims of the alleged offences were farmers from the Chinese community in the remote Waibau area in Naitasiri. The complainant on Count 2 will presumably be a witness on the murder charge. The Applicant lives in Waibau, and I consider that there is a real risk that witnesses will feel intimidated and afraid if the Applicant is released on bail. Although some delay is inevitable before the trial can proceed, I do not consider a 9 month remand period to be unconscionable in the circumstances.

Bail is refused for the 1st Applicant. In respect of the 2nd and 3rd Applicants, there is no presumption in favour of bail. Both Applicants are convicted of robbery with violence. They entered the victim’s farmhouse and hit him on the face with the branch of a tree. They took $360.00, a bunch of keys, and cigarettes from his pocket and fled. The victim received injuries.

The tariff for robbery with violence is between 5 to 10 years. It is likely that the Applicants will receive custodial sentences, when they are sentenced at the conclusion of the murder trial.

In the circumstances I am not satisfied that bail should be granted. Bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
8th February 2005