State v Tikoisuva [2006] FJHC 107; HAC024.2004L (27 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 024 OF 2004L

NO. 18/2006

STATE

v

JONATI TIKOISUVA

Date of Hearing: 27 February 2006
Date of Ruling: 27 February 2006

Mr. S. Qica for the State
Accused in Person

RULING ON BAIL APPLICATION

The accused previously applied for bail on the 11 October 2005 and on that date I ruled that bail be refused for the reasons dated in that ruling.

The accused is before the Court for 4 counts of robbery with violence, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one count of resisting arrest. Offences of which is alleged were committed on the 21^st September 2003. It is alleged that the offences were committed in company with others and 3 others that is all of the others, the subject of the allegation have already been dealt with by the Court, they have entered pleas of guilty. The have received sentences in the range between 5 years and 7 years imprisonment.

In support of this application for bail, the accused highlights the fact that he needs to be granted bail to care for his family and to arrange his defence. He says to arrange a lawyer and to arrange his witness. It appears from what he has put to the Court today that he seeks to raise an alibi defence and has been informed of the requirements with respect to such a defence and the need to advise the prosecution.

The matter has been set for trial on the 29^th May 2006. Prosecution has made available to the Court copy of the accused's previous convictions which the accused acknowledges. There is a total of 58 convictions which in the main are for offences of dishonesty and offences of the type for which the accused is currently before the Court. There are also convictions for escaping from lawful custody albeit that they are sometime ago.

As is detailed in my ruling of the 11^th October 2005 whilst the provisions of Bail Act create a presumption in favour of the granting of bail a presumption is displaced where the accused is previously breached the bail undertaking or bail condition. In this Matter the accused has previously breached his bail undertaking on 2 occasions. He says he was confused about the dates. The accused record is such that would appear that each time he out of custody he has in the past, he immediately committed a further offences or offences of a similar type.

The accused asked that he be granted bail and that be subject to strict conditions.

The presumption in favour of the granting of bail having been displaced by the accused's prior behaviour and there being no changed circumstances subsequent to the Court's ruling or the 11^th October 2005. I see no basis to review the decision of the Court at that time and accordingly, the application is refused and bail is refuses. The accused is remanded to 9.30am on the 10^th March 2006.

John Connors
JUDGE

At Lautoka
27 February 2006