Tamani v The State [2005] FJHC 566; HBM0027.2005L (11 August 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HBM0027 OF 2005L

SIKELI TAMANI

v

THE STATE

Date of Hearing: 11 August 2005
Date of Ruling: 11 August 2005

Ms. J. Nair for the Applicant
Ms. L. Chandra for the State

RULING ON BAIL

The applicant applies by Notice of Motion dated the 8^th August 2005 for bail pending trial. This application is supported by an affidavit sworn on the 8^th August 2005.

The application is opposed.

The State relies upon an affidavit of Detective Constable 1321 Chetty, sworn on the 11^th August 2005.

By virtue of section 3 (4) of the Bail Act, the presumption in favour of the granting of bail is displaced where the person seeking bail has previously breached a bail undertaking or bail condition. There is indeed no time limit for that prior breach and I note the applicant therefore does not get the benefit of the presumption by virtue of a conviction on the 15^th October 1990.

Section 17 of the Bail Act however provides that the court must take into account when considering a bail termination, the time the person may have to spend in custody before going to trial if bail is not granted. That section also provides that the primary consideration in deciding whether to grant bail or not is the likelihood of the accused person appearing to answer the charges laid against him.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that if granted bail the applicant will reside with his mother at Nasinu. He is prepared to report to the closes police station, that is Nakasi Police Post, three times a week

The accused has an appalling record of prior convictions dating back to 1981, some 39 convictions in all but as is pointed out on his behalf, he has committed no offence since 2002 which resulted in a conviction on the 27^th March 2003. That conviction, it is submitted relates to a domestic situation and that is probably borne out by the penalty imposed.

Prior to that there had been no offence since 1999 and the conviction in both offences was quashed on appeal which leaves convictions in 1998 as the most recent serious offences. The 1998 offences dealt within 1999 and was a conviction for robbery with violence. I can only assume by the penalty imposed that it was not serious as the applicant received a suspended sentence in the High Court.

In all the circumstances therefore, I think it is appropriate that the accused be granted bail subject to conditions and I propose that the accused be granted bail on the following conditions:

1. Self and surety in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).

2. You do not apply for travel documents.

3. You do not interfere with the State witnesses.

4. You are to reside at lot 20 Wainibuku Road, Nasinu.

5. You are to report to Nakasi Police Post each Monday, Wednesday and Saturday between 6.00am and 8.00pm.

6. You are not to re-offend during the period of the adjournment.

John Connors
JUDGE

At Lautoka
11 August 2005