Hakim v State [2012] FJHC 1067; HAM61.2012 (9 May 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 61 of 2012

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA HAKIM
APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Mr. I Khan for Applicant
Mr. Niudamu for Respondent

Date of Ruling: 09th May 2012

RULING

1. The applicant above named is charged with 1 count of Rape contrary to section 207 (1) of the Crimes Decree 2009. He applies for bail pending trial.
   
2. Applicant submitted that he is the sole breadwinner and that he has to look after his elderly mother aged 68 years who has suffered with a stroke and cannot move around. He requests the court to consider the statement made to police by the victim on 15/03/2012.
   
3. Respondent (State) objecting to bail being granted submitted that the applicant has previous convictions and when considering the nature of the assault and injuries to the victim in this case he should not be granted bail.
   
4. The accused is the de facto partner of the victim. Therefore in terms of section 3 (4) (c) of the Bail Act the presumption in favour of granting bail is displaced.
   
5. The reasons when bail can be refused is enumerated in section 19 (1) of the Bail Act which states:
   

"An accused person must be granted bail unless in the opinion of the police officer or the court, as the case may be –

(a) the accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;

(b) the interests of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or

(c) granting bail to the accused person would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult."

6. In terms of section 19 (2), as regards the public interest and the protection of community among other things the likelihood of the accused interfering while on bail may be considered.
   
7. I carefully went through the 2nd statement made by the victim on 15/03/2012. In that statement she does not say she was not raped. She says about the assault and further that she was being used as a sex slave.
   
8. Victim has received so many injuries alleged to have been caused by the applicant at the time of committing the offence.
   
9. If bail is granted the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the victim who was his de facto partner is very high. It is not in the interest of justice to grant bail in the circumstances.
   
10. Hence application for bail pending trial is refused.
    

Priyantha Fernando
Judge
09/05/2012