State v Buksh [2006] FJHC 11; HAC0010X.2005S (12 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Crim. Case No: HAC0010 of 2005S

STATE

v.

SHAKIR BUKSH
JITOKO METUI
PAULIASI DELAIBATIKI
TEVITA KOTOIRAKIRAKI

Hearing: 9^th January 2006
Ruling: 12^th January 2006

Counsel: 1^st & 4^th Accused in Person
Mr. G. O’Driscoll for 2^nd Accused
Ms A. Ali for 3^rd Accused

BAIL RULING

The 1^st Accused asks for bail pending trial. The grounds for his application are that he has been threatened by his co-accused in prison, and that he has been unable to arrange for counsel whilst in custody. Conditions of custody are not relevant to this application because the Applicant is kept not in a cell at Korovou, but in the infirmary. He has been in custody awaiting trial for one year.

The State opposes bail on the ground that the Applicant has previous conviction, he may interfere with at least one witness, who is a relative, he is facing a serious charge of murder and is therefore a bail risk.

It appears that the Applicant has indeed been transferred away from the cells, where his co-accused are held, to the prison infirmary. Whether that is as a result of threats made to him by his co-accused, is not confirmed by any evidence before me. However, because he is no longer held with the others, I see no risk to him. Further, in relation to his arrangements to obtain counsel, he was in fact represented by counsel until late November last year, when Dr. Cameron withdrew. He is currently being assisted by the High Court Registry, to contact his family and a lawyer by telephone. I see no disadvantage to him by the fact that he is in custody whilst making these arrangements. Indeed I have been calling this case almost daily to check on representation and to ensure access to telephones.

This is a most serious case, and the delay in proceeding to hearing has been due largely to uncertainty about representation, the withdrawal of counsel, and the change in the prosecution’s position in relation to the former 3^rd Accused. However, the trial will proceed this month albeit de novo before another judge.

It is in the public interest that the Applicant remain in custody for the hearing of the case. Bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
12th January 2006