Qiolele v State [2009] FJHC 135; HAM021.2009 (2 July 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. HAM 021 OF 2009

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail in High Court Criminal Case No. HAC 28 of 2009

BETWEEN:

ALIFERETI QIOLELE
Applicant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Appearance: Applicant in Person
Mr. L. Sovau for the State

Date of Hearing & Ruling: Thursday 2 July 2009

RULING

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to the following charge in the Magistrates’ Court:

Statement of Offence

IN POSSESSION OF ILLICIT DRUGS: Contrary to Section 5(a) of the Illicit Drug Act No. 9 of 2004.

Particulars of Offence

ALIVERETI QIOLELE on the 26th day of March 2009 at Navosa in the Western Division without lawful authority had in his possession 7253.0 grams of Indian Hemp an illicit drug.

[2] Since the Magistrates’ Court do not have jurisdiction over the offences under the Illicit Drug Act No. 9 of 2004, the case was transferred to the High Court. In the High Court, the applicant maintained his plea of guilty but due to the unavailability of the Director of Public Prosecutions, an Information could not be filed and the plea was not taken.

[3] The applicant was remanded in custody until 30 July 2009 for arraignment. His earlier application for bail was rejected by Singh J. who said the amount of drug was substantial and that the had admitted the offence.

[4] In his second application for bail, the applicant appears to be now disputing his earlier admission of the offence. He seeks bail so that he could engage legal counsel.

[5] The State opposes the application. Counsel for the State submits that the applicant had confessed to the offence under caution and that 7 kilograms of marijuana is a substantial amount of drugs to attract a custodial sentence if the applicant is convicted. The States submits these factors make the applicant a flight risk.

[6] I agree. The applicant is facing a serious charge and the evidence against him is strong. These matters indeed make him a flight risk.

[7] Now that a Director of Public Prosecutions has been appointed, the Information should be filed without any further delay. Meanwhile, the applicant is advised to utilize the procedure available to him at the remand center to engage counsel or to seek legal advice.

[8] Bail is refused.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Lautoka
2 July 2009