Soro v State - Ruling [2012] FJHC 1183; HAM084.2012 (28 June 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.: HAM 084 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

ANANAIASA SORO
APPLICANT

AND:

STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Ms. Koto for Applicant
Respondent In Person

Date of Ruling: 28th June 2012

RULING

1. The Applicant is charged with the offence of "Found In Possession of Illicit Drugs" contrary to section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Act, 2004. He applies for bail pending trial.
   
2. The applicant submits that he is a first offender. He is married with 6 children. He has a forestry of about 1000 Mahogany trees and that he is responsible for setting up an agreement with Fiji Forestry Industry in selling them. Wife needs his support to look after the children. His elderly parents also depend on him. He also complains about the inhumane conditions in remand prison.
   
3. State objecting to bail being granted submitted that the Mahogany trees that the applicant has mentioned can be looked after by the other members of his 'mataqali'. The remandees are spread amongst the Suva and Naboro prisons to cater for high numbers thus avoid overcrowding.
   
4. In terms of section 3(1) of the Bail Act 26 of 2002, every accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted .
   
5. There is a presumption in favour of granting of bail, but a person who opposes the granting of bail may seek to rebut the presumption.
   
6. The instance where bail can be refused are 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."

7. In terms of section 19(2) of the Bail Act, as regards the likelihood of surrender to custody, previous criminal history of the accused and the seriousness of the offence may be considered. In this case the accused has no previous convictions although he has a pending case of similar nature in Lautoka High Court.
   
8. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for this offence if convicted is $1000000 fine or imprisonment for life or both. This shows how serious the offence was considered by the legislature. The likelihood of the accused not surrendering to court to answer charges is very high, when you consider the punishment prescribed for the offence.
   
9. The accused is already charged with a similar offence in Lautoka High Court. The likelihood of the accused committing similar offences if bail is granted is also high.
   
10. These override the grounds urged by the applicant in this application.
    
11. Hence application for bail is refused.
    

P Fernando
Judge