Laojindamanee v State - Bail Ruling [2012] FJHC 1480; HAM160.2012 (5 October 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM 160 of 2012

BETWEEN:

PHANAT LAOJINDAMANEE
Applicant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

BEFORE : HON. MR. JUSTICE PAUL K. MADIGAN

Counsel : Ms S. Puamau for State
Mr. A. Vakaloloma for Applicant

Date of Hearing : 5 October 2012
Date of Ruling : 5 October 2012

RULING

[1] The applicant applies for bail pending trial.

[2] He has been charged with three counts of trafficking in persons contrary to section 112(5) of the Crimes Decree, 2009.

[3] The applicant is a citizen of Thailand with family living there. He runs a restaurant in Bangkok.

[4] The State says that the evidence is strong while the applicant submits that he has a good defence in that he had come here as a tourist and the girls with him were ladies he had met on the journey here.
[5] It is not for this Court to now explore the merits of the trafficking charges – that will be for the trial Court; however what is of concern and highly relevant to this application is the status of the applicant in Fiji.

[6] The applicant has no ties to Fiji and has family and a business in Thailand. As this Court said in Xhemali [2011] FJHC 148:

"(he) has never been exposed to the lifestyle and culture of the Fijian people. He will of course for some time be alienated and homesick. That fact together with the certain prospect of a long term of imprisonment should he be convicted ... means that there is every likelihood that he will not appear for trial."

[7] Any applicant for bail pending a trial for human trafficking has an additional burden. The very nature of his alleged deeds means that he has the resources and ability to cross borders of countries, and he has no respect for immigration authorities. Such a fact adds to the view that he might well be a flight risk.

[8] The applicant does not speak English and resides in hotel accommodation. Such accommodation is not easily monitored. Nor has he put forward to the court any person who could be a suitable surety.

[9] Despite a presumption in favour of bail, that presumption is rebutted in this application in several respects.

[10] The application is refused.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE
At Suva
5 October 2012