Sugu v State [2010] FJHC 262; HAM124. 2010 (22 July 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: HAM 124 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

TEVITA SUGU
APPLICANT

AND:

STATE
RESPONDENT

Hearing: 16H July, 2010.
Bail Ruling: 22nd July, 2010.

Counsel: Applicant - In Person.
Respondent - Ms. Koto J.

BAIL RULING

[1] This is an application for bail pending trial in the case bearing No HAC. 077/2010 before the High Court in Suva.

[2] The accused-applicant, Tevita Sugu (the applicant), stands charged for having committed the offence of 'theft' of a van and of the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery' in respect of $ 21,130 of cash on 01st February, 2010, punishable under Sections 291 (1) and 311(1)(a) respectively of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009. The offences are alleged to have been committed with Josaia koroinavosa, the 1st accused, and Jeremaiah Colati, the 3rd accused, in the case.

[3] The applicant applies for bail pursuant to an application made by him whilst on remand custody and on the basis of letters addressed to this court.

[4] The legal basis has been founded on the common law principle of 'presumption of innocence before being found guilty' and under the provisions of the Bail Act with regard to the '... right be released on bail...'

[5] The State objected to the application for bail on the ground that the applicant has had criminal propensity. Learned counsel for the State invited the attention of court to seven previous convictions against the applicant. Previous convictions referred to above, include the offences of robbery with violence on 31st July, 2003, damaging property on 14th November, 2005 offences of larceny on 16th October, 2006 and 01st March, 2007 and instances of forfeiture of bail bond on 04th January, 2010. In addition, the applicant together with Josaia koroinavosa, is charged for similar offences in case No HCA 58/10 before this court. The State has further submitted that the offences, with which the applicant stands charged, are very serious in nature and have the undesired effects of affecting public order and threatening the protection of community.

[6] At the hearing before me on 16th July, 2010, the applicant appearing in person urged that he be released on bail on strict conditions in view of the matters placed before court in his application and the letters addressed to court. The contents of the application and those of the letters focused the attention of court on the inconveniences that he has got to suffer because of his detention in custody.

[7] I have considered the contents of the application, the letters of the applicant and his plea at the oral hearing along with submissions of the learned State Counsel bearing in mind the legal phraseology that an accused person has 'a right to be released on bail' and that 'there is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail' under Section 3 of the Bail Act.

[8] Section 3 conversely contains provisions whereby 'interests of justice' have been declared as a necessary factor to be considered by court in affording 'the right to be released' to an accused person under the Act. Moreover, the presumption favouring the accused could be rebutted by a person opposing the grant of bail by the criteria laid down in Section 18 (1) of the Act, which include the public interest and the protection of community.

[9] While the scheme of the Act provides a basis for a person opposing bail to rebut the presumption favouring an accused-person under Section 18(1) read with section 3 (3) of the Act, I am of the view that court is also invested with power independent of such opposition by a party to consider issues concerning 'interests of justice' and 'public interest' under Section 3(1) and Sections 19 (1) and 19 (2) of the Act.

[10] Having taken into account the criteria laid down in the foregoing provisions, I conclude that:

(a) There is an apparent likelihood of the applicant not observing bail conditions in view of his previous conduct as set-out in the submissions on behalf of the State;

(b) The likelihood of the applicant committing another offence/s whilst on bail in view of his previous convictions, which has the effect of endangering the community;

(c) The circumstances, nature, seriousness of the offence are such that 'interests of justice' and 'public interests 'override the 'right [of the applicant] to be released on bail'.

[11] In coming to the above conclusions, I have not lost sight of the provisions of Section 19 (2) (b) with reference to the interests of the accused-person to which court should essentially pay due consideration in dealing with an application for bail. However, my consideration of the matters as set-out in Section 19 (2) (b) are outweighed by the demands of interests of justice and public interest as enumerated above.

[12] Having considered all the circumstances, I hold that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Application is accordingly disallowed and bail is refused.

PRIYANTHA NAWANA
JUDGE
22.07.2010