State v Vakarusaqoli [2009] FJHC 33; HAC023D.2004 (6 February 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No HAC 023 of 2004

STATE

V

LEONE VAKARUSAQOLI

Hearing: 30th January 2009
Ruling: 6th February 2009

Counsel: Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State
Applicant in person

BAIL RULING

[1] The Applicant is charged on five counts of robbery with violence, attempted robbery, unlawful use of motor vehicle and larceny. The Information is dated the first of September 2004. However both transfer and trial have been delayed because of the non-appearance of the three accused. The Applicant, who is the first accused on the Information only appeared on the 30th of January 2009, because he was in remand for another offence before Goundar J. The accused Tawake Cakacaka and Kelemedi Dreu, are both at large. The Applicant has two pending cases, one before Goundar J (for which he was remanded) and one in the Magistrates’ Court. The other High Court matter is for possession of illicit drugs. He now applies for bail on the grounds that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that he is not happy with prison conditions, that he is his family’s sole breadwinner and that he has now been in remand for five months.

[2] The State strongly opposes this application saying that the Applicant’s bail record is "appalling." Counsel said that the Applicant has been evading the courts since 2004 when he was first granted bail for these offences. He says that the Applicant is charged with serious offences and that the State relies on a strong prosecution case which includes the Applicant’s confession.

[3] In response the Applicant made an additional complaint about prison food, and said that he wanted bail in order to contact the Legal Aid Commission. He accepted that since 2004 even when he was at large, he made no attempts to contact the Legal Aid Commission, or to instruct counsel.

[4] This is an old case, delayed only because of the non-appearance of the accused persons. The Applicant himself has disobeyed his bail conditions for four years and has only appeared in court because he is remanded for another offence. He no longer has a right to bail. Indeed the facts rebut the presumption in favour of bail. The State must now decide whether it will wait for the arrest of the other two co-accused, or will sever the Information and proceed to trial against the Applicant. The latter option may lead to a relatively speedy trial. This is a matter for the State to decide.

[5] However, the circumstances of the history of this case are such that the Applicant must remain in custody until his trial. The offences are serious, the State alleges multiple offending with multiple accused, and the Applicant has shown through his own conduct, that he is a bail risk. Further, in evidence before the court in a number of bail applications, there has been a vast improvement in prison conditions. The improvement includes a total renovation of the Sacau Dormitory.

[6] In the interests of justice, bail is refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
6th February 2009