State v Radule [2005] FJHC 65; HAC0043D.2004S (29 March 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: 23rd March 2005
Ruling: 29th March 2005

Counsel: Mr. D. Toganivalu for State
Mr. A. Vakaloloma for 1st Accused
Mr. N. Vere for 2nd and 3rd Accused

RULING

Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Accused, asks for bail for both. The grounds for the application are that the Accused will have been in custody for 11 months prior to trial which is fixed for September 2005, they are of good character and will surrender to custody, they are both of fixed address and steady employment, there will be no interference with witnesses, the prosecution case rests entirely on confessions the admissibility of which will be challenged, both accused co-operated with the police and that there has been no previous failure to surrender to custody.

State counsel opposes bail on the ground that the charges facing the accused (of murder and robbery) are serious, the likely penalty is life imprisonment, there is a strong prosecution case based on full admissions by the Applicants and a hearing date has now been fixed for September 26th 2005.

All three Applicants applied for bail on the 4th of February 2005, when they were all represented by Mr. A. Vakaloloma. I refused it in respect of the 1st Accused on the ground that the witnesses all lived in the Waibau area and there was a risk of interference. I refused bail for the 2nd and 3rd Accused on the ground that they had both been convicted of robbery with violence and were awaiting sentence. That situation has now changed. Their guilty pleas have been vacated and they will be tried on the murder charge and the robbery with violence charge together with the 1st Accused. The principles relevant to that bail application are different from the principles of bail pending trial.

Although the 2nd and 3rd Accused have a right to bail, that presumption may be rebutted if there are public interest factors which outweigh it. In this case, while the Accused are of previous good character, have co-operated with the police and are employed (one as a farmer and the other as a fish processor), the charges, and the circumstances of the alleged offences are very serious indeed. Further the Accused confessed to the police, and although they challenge those confessions, there is, prima facie a strong prosecution case.

The delay in setting a hearing date is unfortunate and was partly caused because of the delay in charging the 2nd and 3rd Accused. In fact until last Wednesday (the 23rd of March) the 2nd and 3rd Accused were in remand pending sentence in this court. It was only as a result of the transfer order on the murder charge, that the 2nd and 3rd Accused were remanded pending trial. Thus their remand period, pending trial, will total 7 months when their trial commences.

Given the seriousness of the offences charged, the vulnerability of the Chinese farming community at Waibau, and the length of time in remand pending trial, I consider that bail should not be granted in the public interest. The Accused are now represented by counsel and have more than enough time to prepare for trial.

Bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
29th March 2005