Vakatale v State [2010] FJHC 295; HAM076.2010S (12 August 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 076 OF 2010S

ROPATE VAKATALE

vs

THE STATE

Counsels : Applicant in Person
Ms. J. Cokanasiga for the State

Hearing : 22nd July 2010
Ruling : 12th August 2010

RULING ON BAIL APPLICATION

1. In High Court Criminal Case No. HAC 58/09, the applicant was facing three counts of "robbery with violence", contrary to section 293(1)(a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 17; "criminal intimidation", contrary to section 330(a) of the Penal Code, and "resisting arrest", contrary to section 247(b) of the Penal Code. The applicant said, he had been in custody for 1 year 4 months. He has applied for bail twice in July 2009 and in February 2010. Both applications were refused.

2. In this present application, the applicant listed nine reasons as to why he should be released on bail:

1) I have been in custody for over 1 year and 4 months

2) The seriousness of the charge cannot stand because two of the accused has already been granted bail in this issue

3) Prosecution strongest evidence implicating me in this case is an alleged confession made to the police. In fact, this confession was obtained under duress as the Medical Report to prove this.

4) The victims that were robbed clearly stated in their statements that they personally knew the robbers who attacked them, and they positively identified them

5) Not a threat to the witness since they never implicated me on this issue.

6) The merits of the Prosecution's case does not warrant a possible conviction as they are relying on inadmissible evidence, and the complainer had already stated that they knew who robbed them, and I was not one of them.

7) The need to be at liberty rests on my employment as I have ependants to support.

8) Willing to comply with any Bail Conditions the court may deem proper to impose, and promise to surrender into custody whenever the court requires.

9) Also willing to provide suitable surety.

3. The prosecution strongly objected to the bail application. They said, the trial is set to commence on 4th October 2010, that is, seven weeks away. They said, there is a real risk the applicant may skip bail, as he had previously said, he worked as a seaman.

4. I have carefully considered the applicant's application and the prosecution's objection. The trial is only seven weeks away. All the other co-accuseds are presently being remanded in custody, awaiting the trial on 4th October 2010. Grounds 3, 4 and 6 are strictly matters for the trial proper. Ground 2 is not correct, as the other co-accused are in custody. Ground 5, 7, 8 and 9 are similar to his previous bail application. Looking at the application in its totality, no exceptional grounds had been shown to persuade this court to grant the applicant's application.

5. The bail application is therefore denied.

Salesi Temo
ACTING JUDGE

AT Suva
12th August 2010