Rokovunisei v Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption [2011] FJHC 1; HAM283.2010 (5 January 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM283 of 2010

BETWEEN:

OLOTA TULUMANI ROKOVUNISEI
Applicant

AND:

FIJI INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Respondent

Date of Hearing & Ruling: 5th January 2011
Counsel: Mr. K. Muaror for Applicant
Mr. S. Dissanayake & Ms S. Sanmogam for FICAC

RULING

[1] The applicant's trial is pending before the High Court. He was on bail until 30 November 2010 when he failed to appear in court for a mention. He also changed his residential address without first obtaining the leave of the court as a condition of his bail. On 3 December 2010, the applicant was arrested on a bench warrant. He appeared before Fernando J without his counsel who was attending a legal conference in Nadi. After seeking reasons regarding his non-appearance and his change of address, his Lordship remanded the applicant in custody and ordered that he file affidavit explaining the breaches of his bail conditions.

[2] On 7 December 2010, the applicant filed a motion and an affidavit seeking fresh bail and explaining the breaches of his bail conditions.

[3] The applicant says that his non-appearance in court on 30 November 2010 was due to a misunderstanding. He thought he was not required to appear on 30 November 2010 because that date was only for filing of an affidavit in relation to an application filed by the State. His counsel, Mr. Muaror also mistakenly advised him that they were not required to appear in court on 30 November 2010.

[4] In relation to change of his residential address the applicant explains that he was awaiting settlement of the sale of his residential property before he was going to inform the court of the change of address.

[5] Counsel for the applicant submits that he is not a flight risk. The applicant's passport is with the registry and he had always attended court hearings except on 30 November 2010 due to a misunderstanding.

[6] Whilst I accept that the applicant's non-appearance on 30 November 2010 could be excused for a misunderstanding, there could not be a misunderstanding regarding the bail condition that he inform the court of any change of his residential address. That particular bail condition reads:

To reside at 761 Damu Circle, Pacific Harbour until the conclusion of his trial.

And not to change that address without the written leave of the Deputy Registrar of the Suva High Court which leave must be obtained before any change of address is made.

[7] The applicant is a highly qualified person, being a former Chief Executive Officer of the Fiji National Provident Fund. His explanation for changing his address without first informing the court is unsatisfactory. Clearly he breached his bail by changing his address without first informing the court of the change.

[8] The question is whether the breach is so serious as to justify remanding the applicant in custody pending his trial.

[9] Revocation of bail is an extreme step (State v. Vuetasau Buatoka Misc. Case No: HAM03 of 2007 (9 May 2007) Shameem J).

[10] Mr. Dissanayake for the State does not oppose granting of bail on the same terms and conditions that were imposed earlier. In my judgment it is a fair concession by the State. There is no basis to conclude that the applicant is a flight risk.

[11] In these circumstances I am not willing to take the extreme step of remanding the applicant in custody pending his trial. Previously the applicant was released on his own recognizance of $1,000.00. Because of the breach of bail I order that he be bailed in the sum of $2,000 cash with one surety of the like sum. Other conditions remain.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
5th January 2011

Solicitors:
Office of Muaror & Co. for Applicant
Office of Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption for State