Kubu v State [2012] FJHC 1355; HAM167.2012 (4 October 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: HAM 167 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

LEPANI RAIVAU KUBU

AND:

STATE

Counsel : Applicant – In Person
Mr. Sovau for the State

Date of Hearing : 3rd October 2012
Date of Ruling : 4th October 2012

BAIL RULING

1. This is the 2nd application filed by the Applicant for bail.
   
2. The Applicant submits the following grounds for bail:
   
   • (a) To support wife and children;
   • (b) Not flight risk.
     
3. State Counsel objects for bail and submits following factors:
   
   • (a) The charge against the Applicant is Rape of his step daughter;
   • (b) Public interest and the interest of the community.
     
4. Section 3 (1) of the Bail Act provides that every Accused has a right to be released on bail, unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted.
   
5. In this case the Applicant had mentioned his wife as his surety.
   
6. Considering Section 19 (1) ( c ) of the Bail Act it reads as follows:
   

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

7. In Tak Sang Hao vs State (2001) FJHC 15; Her Ladyship Justice N Shameem had referred to Adesh Singh & Others v State (1988) FJHC 8 and stated, that the following factors should be considered.
   
   1. The presumption n of innocence;
   2. Whether the accused to appear to stand trial;
   3. Whether bail has been refused previously'
   4. The seriousness of the charges;
   5. The likelihood of the accused re-offending on bail;
   6. Any interference with prosecution witnesses;
   7. The accused's character;
   8. The accused's right to prepare his defence;
   9. The likelihood of further charges;
   10. The State's opposition to bail.
       
8. The Applicant had submitted in his bail application that his wife is working and he is self employed as a carpenter.
   
9. Considering the nature of the offence, the application and all other circumstances I find this application falls within the ambit of Section 19 hence I refuse bail.
   
10. Application for bail is dismissed.
    

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
4th October 2012

Solicitors: Applicant appeared in person
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State