Vala v State [2008] FJHC 260; HAM116.2008 (23 October 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO: HAM 116 of 2008

BETWEEN

JOSEVATA VALA
Applicant

AND

THE STATE
Respondent

Applicant in Person
Ms George for Respondent
Date of Ruling: 23 October 2008

RULING

1. The applicant makes an application for bail pending trial. He has 4 separate charges pending in the Magistrates Court. They are all robbery with violence charges. The charges arose from separate incident of alleged offending. It is note worthy that since he was arrested on bench warrant and in custody he has not committed further offence.

2. The Magistrates Court has refused bail. This court is being asked to review bail.

3. In his letter to this court seeking the review of his bail application, the applicant has set out several grounds, most of which are irrelevant to support an application such as this. His letter did state the following:

(i) Needs bail to engage a lawyer;

(ii) Trial date is fixed for 2 December 2008 and that is too long to be in custody, given his presumption of innocence;

(iii) Promise to observe all and any condition of bail the court may seem fir to set

4. During the hearing, I informed the applicant that given the fact that he had breached bail before, the presumption of bail in his favor pursuant to section 3(1) of the Bail Act 2002 has been rebutted by the fact that he has breached bail conditions before.

5. His plea to be released on bail because of the suffering of his family ignores the fact that when he was committing the offences certain consequences would flow when arrested. Public interest and in particular the victims of the applicant’s alleged criminal activities needs to be protected.

6. Robbery With Violence is a serious charge. The offence is prevalent in our community. The appellant has a history of committing this offence. While he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in respect of the charges pending in the Magistrates’ Court, they are factors that would move me not to grant bail in this case.

7. However, I was prepared to grant bail if an acceptable surety was provided. That surety the applicant was advised, must not be a close family member i.e. father, mother, brother, sister or wife. The surety must undertake a non-cash bond of $1000.00. The usual terms of the High Court Bail Form to also apply and reporting 3 times a week at the nearest Police Station between 6am and 6 pm.

8. The applicant was given until 27 October 2008 to find a surety, but he insisted that he will find a surety by 23 October 2008. The court warned him that based on past experience the 27 October 2008 would be better. He was warned that failure to provide surety when case called on 23 October 2008 will mean his bail will be refused.

9. On 23 October 2008 when the matter was called for examination of surety, the applicant advised the court that his surety is tied up and will not be available until 11 am.

10. Bail refused.

Isikeli Mataitoga
JUDGE

At Suva
23 October 2008.