Rapui v The State [2006] FJHC 3; HAM0004D.2006S (2 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Action HAM0004.2006S

SULIASI RAPUI

V

THE STATE

Fiji High Court, Suva
1st, 2nd February 2006
Gates J

RULING

Bail pending trial in the Magistrates Court; appeal to High Court; bail had been revoked by Magistrate for breach of reporting conditions and for having committed another offence; nonetheless applicant had almost always attended court; denied breach of reporting; no evidence on strength of case against applicant s.19(2)(a)(iv) Bail Act; charged with one count of unlawful use of motor vehicle s.292 Penal Code; maximum term of imprisonment 6 months; would have served 3 months by trial date, equivalent to term of 4 months 15 days.

Applicant in Person
Mr A. Ravindra Singh for Respondent

[1] The applicant applied to the High Court for bail pending trial in the Magistrates Court. The trial date is set for 22^nd February 2006.

[2] He is charged with the offence of unlawful use of a motor vehicle contrary to section 292 of the Penal Code.

[3] Bail was initially granted to him. The record is not quite clear but it appears bail was first granted when he was first brought to court on 2.5.05. He attended regularly at first, then he missed a date. Anyway the Magistrate renewed his bail and reduced the reporting days. The station officer Valelevu then wrote to the court stating he had not been reporting. This he denies. He says he did report. There is no explanation as to why this should be so, and I must therefore rely on the station officer’s record.

[4] However on 2.12.05 the Magistrate noted that the applicant had committed another offence. No details of a conviction were recorded. The fact that a person on bail awaiting trial is subsequently charged with another offence does not breach a condition that he not commit another offence within the period on bail. If he had not reported in accordance with his conditions of bail, it would be correct procedure for a Magistrate to revoke the grant of bail and indeed to remand that person in custody [section 25(3) Bail Act, 26 of 2002].

[5] A Magistrate is sometimes faced with a number of Accused who appear to take it in turns not to turn up, thus prolonging the proceedings, and putting off the resolve of the witnesses, to attend and to give their evidence. In such cases, if a Magistrate forms that view, such view should be recorded, and orders made for bail to be revoked and for the trial to be advanced. Much will depend on the circumstances and gravity of the charge as well as on the bail circumstances of each Accused.

[6] The applicant has an extensive criminal record, though nothing after 2001. For the most part he appears to have attended properly on 16 occasions, a feat of endurance in itself.

[7] By the hearing date he would have served, with remission, a term of 3 months imprisonment equivalent to a sentence of 4 months 15 days imprisonment. The maximum for the charge is 6 months. This factor is compelling even if not completely determinative.

[8] I am prepared to grant bail on the usual High Court terms. He has put up $500 cash bail in his own recognisance already. This will continue. He must provide one suitable surety of $500, and report Mondays and Fridays between 6 am-6 pm at the Valelevu Police Station. The station officer is to provide a written record of signing-on by the applicant for each attendance to remove any doubt as to the applicant’s compliance with the condition of reporting. The applicant should maintain his own record of the name, rank and number of the officer to whom he reported.

Orders accordingly.

A.H.C.T. GATES
JUDGE

Applicant in Person
Solicitors for the Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Suva