Navosavakadua v State [2012] FJHC 1280; HAM102.2012 (9 August 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 102 of 2012

BETWEEN:

JIUTA NAVOSAVAKADUA
APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Mr. Muloilagi for Applicant
Mr. Vosawale for Respondent

Date of Ruling: 09th August 2012

RULING

1. The Applicant is charged with three Counts of Rape and one Count of Indecent Assault. He applies for bail pending trial.
   
2. The grounds submitted by the applicant are:
   
   • (i) That he is a first offender
     
   • (ii) That the strength of the prosecution case is weak
     
   • (iii) That facilities in remand prison are inhumane and degrading.
     
3. State opposes to bail being granted to accused.
   
4. The alleged victim is the step daughter of the accused (Applicant). Therefore in terms of section 3 (iv) (c) of the Bail Act, the presumption in favour of granting bail is displaced.
   
5. In terms of section 19 uh(1) of the Bail Act, accused should not be refused bail unless the court is satisfied as to any one or more of the considerations set out in section 19 (1) of the Bail Act namely:
   

"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. As regards the public interest and protection of the community, the likelihood of the accused interfering with the witness has to be taken to consideration.
   
7. As the victim is the step daughter of the accused and therefore the likelihood of the accused interfering with the victim step daughter is very high.
   
8. Although the applicant has said in his application that he is a first offender, he has 2 previous convictions, the prosecution submitted.
   
9. Therefore it is not in the interest of the public to grant bail to the applicant.
   
10. Although the counsel for the applicant has submitted in his submissions that the wife of the accused is pregnant, the accused admitted in court that she is not pregnant.
    
11. The likelihood of the accused interfering with the victim overrides the other grounds urged by the Applicant.
    
12. Hence application for bail is refused.
    

Priyantha Fernando
Judge
09/08/2012