Ratulevu v State [2011] FJHC 21; HAM290.2010 (27 January 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO:
HAM 290 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

SIMIONE RATULEVU
Applicant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Counsel:For Applicant - In Person.
For Respondent/State - Ms. Ratakele, N.

Date of Hearing: 25/01/2011
Date of Ruling: 27/01/2011

RULING

The accused(Applicant) Simione Ratulevu Sovuna applies for bail pending trial.

The applicant is charged with one count of Rape. It is submitted by the Applicant that he has no previous convictions, that he is married with 2 children and his wife is 5 months pregnant. He further undertakes to reside away from the area where victim resides, if bail is granted.

State opposing to bail being granted submitted that Rape is a serious offence which attracts a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. As the Applicant has admitted the commission of offence at the caution interview, it is more likely that Applicant could be convicted for the offence and that the Applicant will not be present in court to answer the charge.

The primary consideration in deciding whether to grant bail is the likelihood of the accused person appearing in court to answer charges laid against him.

In terms of Section 3(3) of the Bail Act, there is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to a person, but a person who opposes the granting of bail may rebut the presumption.

Section 18(1) of the Bail Act:

A person making submissions to a court against the presumption in favour of bail must deal with:-

(a) the likelihood of the accused person surrendering to custody and appearing in court;

(b) the interests of the accused person;

(c) the public interest and the protection of the community.

The accused has no previous conviction against him. The trial date is not yet fixed, and it is very unlikely that this trial can be taken up within next 10 months.

In terms of Section 17(1) of the Bail Act the court must take into account the time the person may have to spend in custody before trial, if bail is not granted. Court can impose strict bail conditions so that the accused appears in court to face charges, and also that the accused does not interfere with the witnesses.
The accused has already spent 3 months in remand.

I find the State has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the granting of bail to the Applicant.

Therefore I order that the accused Applicant be released on bail on the following terms:

(1) Accused to sign a Surety Bail Bond in a sum of $10000.00.
(2) He should not in any manner interfere with the victim or witnesses in the case.
(3) He should reside at Natogadravu Village, Tailevu, and should not change the address of residence without prior permission of court.
(4) Accused should report to Wainibokasi Police Post, Nausori every Wednesday between 7.00am – 7.00pm.

Priyantha Fernando
JUDGE

At Suva
27th January, 2011.