Tikoikirisimasi v State [2010] FJHC 211; HAM046.2010S (25 June 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 046 OF 2010S

SAMISONI TIKOIKIRISIMASI

V

THE STATE

Counsels: Accused in Person
Mr. S. Lacanivalu for the State

Hearing: 7th and 25th May 2010
Ruling: 25th June 2010

RULING

1. In High Court Criminal Case No. HAC 040 of 2010S, the accused faced the following charges:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

RAPE: contrary to Section 207(2) (a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

SAMISONI TIKOIKIRISIMASI on the 5th day of February 2010 at Qoma Island, Tailevu in the Central Division, had carnal knowledge with MARAIA DITAGI without her consent.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

ESCAPE FROM LAWFUL CUSTODY: contrary to Section 196 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

SAMISONI TIOKOIKIRISIMASI on the 9th day of February 2010 at Korovou Police Station, Tailevu in the Central Division, being in lawful custody escaped from the said lawful custody.

2. A trial date has been set for 17th to 21st January 2011. The usual disclosures has been served on the accused. The accused had been remanded in custody since 10th February 2010. He now applies for bail. He said, he lived with his mother and grandmother. He doesn’t mention where. He said, he’s a first offender. He said, he was assaulted while in police custody, but no medical reports were done. He said, the remand centre is full. He said, he could arrange for a surety.

3. The State opposed the bail application. They said, the accused escaped from lawful custody on this matter, and the accused was now being charged for it in count No. 2. The State also said, the accused need to be remanded in custody for his own personal safety. Tension is still high and the victim’s relative may be tempted to attack the accused, while on bail. The State also said, they have a strong case. The accused allegedly confessed to raping the complainant in this matter. Time on remand can be deducted at sentencing.

4. The court has carefully read all the papers. It is well settled that, the test for the grant of bail, was whether or not, the accused will turn up at the date arranged, to take his trial (section 17(2), Bail Act 2002). The factors to be considered in the grant or otherwise, of bail, were outlined in section 19 of the Bail Act 2002. I have carefully read and considered the parties’ opposing positions. In this case, the accused allegedly admitted raping the complainant at the material time. The prosecution said, their case was strong against the accused. They said, it was also wise to remand the accused in custody, because the victim’s family may attack him, if granted bail.

5. In my view, I have come to accept that the prosecution’s reasons for objecting to bail were somewhat persuasive, and I therefore accept their position. Bail is therefore refused.

Salesi Temo
ACTING JUDGE

AT Suva
25th June 2010