State v Williams [2007] FJHC 60; HAC126D.06S (14 November 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC 126 of 2006

STATE

v.

TILA WILLIAMS

Hearing: 8th November 2007
Ruling: 14th November 2007

Counsel: Mr. S. Fotofili for State
Accused in person

BAIL RULING

The Applicant applies for bail pending trial. He is charged with robbery with violence. The State alleges that on the 20th of November 2006 he with others robbed one Yoo Teak Jeoung and used personal violence on him. He is also charged with unlawful use of motor vehicle. The main ground for his application is that the conditions of his custody are inhumane and degrading. The State opposes the application.

State counsel points to the Applicant’s numerous pending cases in the Magistrates’ Court and his previous record for absconding while on bail. The State produced the affidavits of Oliver Fisher, Officer-in-charge of the Suva Prison and of Frank Clifford Hazelman, Chief Prison Officer at Fiji Prison Headquarters, Suva.

The Applicant called one witness, a fellow prisoner Guston Kean. He gave evidence that he and the Applicant are remanded in the Sacau Dormitory and that the Dormitory currently holds 51 prisoners. It has a maximum capacity of 30 prisoners. He said that the prisoners are only let out of the Dormitory for five minutes to get their food and that they are harassed by prison officers. He said he had made complaints about the prison conditions to the Ombudsman and to the Human Rights Commission.

The State relied on the affidavits of two senior prison officers. Oliver Fisher states that the Sacau Dormitory holds remand prisoners and that it can accommodate a maximum of 48 prisoners. On the 7th of November 2007, it held 43 remand prisoners. He says that none of the prisoners are held in the condemned cell block and that the Applicant has access to proper sanitary facilities and flush toilets. He says that the Applicant is given one hour a day for physical exercise. Frank Clifford Hazelman gives similar information in his affidavit.

Previously, this court and the other criminal High Courts granted bail to remand prisoners on the basis that the conditions of custody were inhumane and degrading. The conditions inspected by the court, and by counsel, were the cells of the Awaiting Trial Block of the Korovou Prison. The conditions included the lack of ventilation, the overcrowding in each cell, the damp and insect infested mattresses, the lack of any respite from these conditions for almost 24 hours a day, and the unsanitary use of the bucket toilet in each cell. The combination of all these factors led the courts to the conclusion that the condition of custody were inhumane, degrading and in breach of section 25 of the Constitution.

Subsequently, the remand prisoners were removed from the cells and kept in theSacau Dormitory. However, some months later, they were again transferred to the condemned cells because the dormitories had become overcrowded. This court again granted bail because of the conditions of custody. The remandees were then taken out of the cells again and remanded in the Sacau and Yasi Dormitories until the present day. Until this application was made, there have been no further complaints about the conditions of custody. The dormitories, whilst not being ideal, have toilet facilities, bunk beds and running water. Coupled with a daily exercise routine, they do not constitute inhumane and degrading conditions. The affidavits of both prison officers say that the Awaiting Trial Block is now undergoing renovation work so that they comply with the United Nations Minimum Standard Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners. The Applicant does not dispute this but says that the dormitories are also in breach of the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules.

On the evidence of Guston Kean, there is a significant difference in the conditions of the Applicant’s custody and that of his predecessors who were held in the Awaiting Trial Block. The Applicant sleeps in a bunk bed in a dry dormitory. Rain does not come in through the windows soaking the mattresses. Insects do not infest the bedding. He does not sit in a small cell with two other men and a foul-smelling bucket latrine. The prisons authorities say that the Dormitory is not over-crowded, and I accept that evidence. I also accept however that the remandees are subjected to orders possibly shouted at them, but I am conscious that the prisons service is a disciplined service, and that prisons must be run in a regimented and orderly way. I do not consider that the prisoners are harassed on the evidence before me. The conditions of custody do not persuade me to grant bail.

The Applicant is a bail risk with a history of escaping from lawful custody. I have no expectation that he will respect bail conditions and other orders of the court. His trial will commence in April 2008 by which time he would have been in remand for 7 months. This is not unreasonable.

Bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
14th November 2007