Tasova v State [2012] FJHC 1104; HAM68.2012 (11 May 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: HAM 68 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

EREMASI TASOVA

AND:

STATE

Counsel : Applicant in person
Ms. K Semisi for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 10th May 2012
Date of Sentence : 11 May 2012

BAIL RULING

1. This is an application for bail filed by the applicant above named.
   
2. The applicant submits following in support of his bail application.
   
   1. Not breached bail conditions;
      
   2. Remains innocent;
      
   100. Suffering from Muscoskeletal pain due to prison condition;
        
   4. Co-accused was released on bail;
      
   5. His wife is pregnant.
      
3. The State Counsel submits following grounds and objects for bail.
   
   1. The Appellant was given bail and he breached bail by being absent to the Court on 16/03/2012;
      
   2. The Applicant was issued with a Bench Warrant by this Court;
      
   100. The Applicant alleged to have committed another offence while on bail;
        
   4. The Applicant has 25 previous conviction out of which 24 are within the operational period;
      
   5. Threat to the community
      
4. Perusing the record and the submission of the State Counsel it is observed that the applicant was originally granted bail by the Magistrate on 25th July 2011, when the case was referred to the High Court he was granted bail, subsequently, the bail conditions was varied in favour of the Applicant.
   
5. When the case was called on the 16th March 2012, the Applicant was absent and unrepresented. A Bench warrant was issued to apprehend the Applicant.
   
6. In the meantime the applicant was arrested for a robbery related matter. State submits in that case that there is a positive identification of the Applicant's involvement and he had escaped from Naikabula, Lautoka to Suva then he was arrested after a chase.
   
7. The Applicant was produced on the 28th March 2012 before the Court on Bench Warrant. His bail was revoked for non-appearance and remanded until the conclusion of the case.
   
8. Considering Section 3(1) of the Bail act, I agree that the Applicant is entitled for bail but the said section is subject to limitations.
   
9. In this case the Applicant was absent that itself is violation of bail conditions and issue with Bench Warrant.
   
10. Further the Applicant was arrested for involving in another robbery case. Even though there is no conviction but the allegation is serious.
    
11. Further the applicant is not new to Criminal Justice system, he has 24 previous convictions.
    
12. Section 19(1) of the bail act states as follows:
    
    1. An accused person must be granted bail unless in the opinion of the

police officer of the court, as the case may be;

2. The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody an appeal in court to answer the charges laid;
   

100. The interests of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or
     

4. Granting bail to the accused person would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.
   

13. Considering all circumstances in the light of Section 19 of the Bail act I find enlarging the Applicant on bail will be threat to the society. Therefore, the application for bail is refused.
    
14. Bail refused.
    
15. 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
    

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
11th May 2012

Solicitors : Applicant in person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for Respondent