Williams v State [2008] FJHC 249; HAM099.2008 (8 October 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO.: HAM 099 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

TILA WILLIAMS
Applicant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Ms. P. Madanavosa for the State

Date of Hearing: Tuesday 7th October, 2008
Date of Ruling: Wednesday 8th October, 2008

RULING

[1] The Applicant makes an application for bail pending trial. He has three separate charges pending in the Magistrates’ Court. In two cases, he is charged with robbery with violence and in the third case he is charged with larceny from person. The charges arose from separate incidents of alleged offending and in at least one case the allegation arose while the Applicant was on bail.

[2] The Magistrates’ Court has refused bail. This Court has power to review bail de novo.

[3] Initially, the State opposed bail saying the Applicant has a history of breaching bail conditions. In two matters, the Applicant was arrested on a bench warrant for failure to appear in the hearings in breach of his bail conditions. Further the Applicant has two previous convictions for escaping from lawful custody and two for robbery with violence. He is unemployed but his brother Reverend Williams from All Nations Christian Fellowship is willing to sign a surety for him. I have no doubt that Rev. Williams is a person of good standing in the community and his ability to provide a surety is unquestionable.

[4] However, I am concerned about the Applicant’s history of breaching bail conditions. Under the Bail Act, there is a presumption in favour of bail. This presumption has to be rebutted by the prosecution on balance of probability. Under section 3(3) of the Bail Act the presumption is rebutted if the Accused has previously breached a bail undertaking or condition.

[5] In this case, the Applicant has breached bail conditions previously.

[6] I am concerned about the public interest factor as well.

[7] Robbery with violence is a serious charge. The offence is prevalent in our community. The Applicant has a history of committing robbery with violence. Of course, he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in respect of the charges pending in court, but these matters persuade me that it is in the public interest that the Applicant remains in remand pending trial despite his ability to provide a surety from a person who has a good standing in the community.

[8] The application is refused.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
Wednesday 8th October, 2008

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