Ratuniyarawa v State [2012] FJHC 1310; HAM125.2012 (5 September 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 125 of 2012

BETWEEN:

APISALOME RATUNIYARAWA
APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Applicant In Person
Ms. Madanavosa for Respondent

Date of Ruling: 05th September 2012

BAIL RULING

1. The applicant is charged with one count of Rape contrary to section 207 (1) (2) (a) of the Crimes Decree 2009.
   
2. He applies for bail pending trial. Applicant submitted that there is no one to look after his business. Also he submitted that there is no one to look after his farm and his wife cannot look after his boat and the net. Further he submitted that he was looking after his grandchildren and his son has got a head injury.
   
3. State opposes the granting of bail and submitted that the applicant is charged with a domestic violence offence as the applicant is the grandfather of the victim.
   
4. In terms of section 3 (3) of the Bail Act there is a presumption in favour of granting of bail. However as this is a domestic violence offence, in terms of section 3 (4) (c) of the Bail Act the said presumption is displaced.
   
5. In terms of section 19 (1) of the Bail Act, accused should not be refused bail unless the court is satisfied as to any one or more of the consideration set out in section 19 (1) namely:
   
   • (1) 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 likelihood of surrender to custody, the circumstances, the nature and the seriousness of the offence should be considered.
   
7. As regards the public interest and protection of the community, the likelihood of the accused interfering with evidence, witnesses has to be considered.
   
8. The accused is charged with a very serious offence which entails a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life.
   
9. The main witnesses for the prosecution are the victim who is the grandchild of the applicant and her mother. Therefore the chances of the accused interfering with the said witnesses if bail is granted are very high.
   
10. Therefore it is not in the interest of the public and the protection of the community to grant bail to the applicant.
    
11. Hence application for bail is refused.
    

Priyantha Fernando
Judge
05/09/2012