Matavura v State [2012] FJHC 820; HAC347.2011 (24 January 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No.: HAC 347/2011

BETWEEN :

MATEO MATAVURA
[Applicant]

AND:

THE STATE
[Respondent]

BEFORE : Hon. Mr. Justice P. Fernando

COUNSEL : Applicant in Person
Ms. A. Vavadakua for Respondent

Date of Hearing : 18h January 2012
Date of Ruling : 24th January 2012

RULING ON BAIL PENDING TRIAL

1.0 The accused is charged with one count of Rape and applies for bail pending Trial.

2.0 Accused submitted that he is the sole breadwinner of his parents. He further submitted that he will reside in Navua and not go to the village where the victim resides if bail is granted.

3.0 Filing objections to bail state counsel submitted that the victim is 16 years old and that the accused is an uncle of the victim who has a relationship to the victim through her father. Therefore the accused would interfere with the victim and that he would contact the victim to dissuade the main role as the victim.

4.0 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 considerations set out in Section 19(1) of the Bail Act namely:

• (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.
  

5.0 In terms of Section 19(2)(c) of the Bail Act, as regards the public interest and the protection of the community, the court must have regard to the likelihood of the person interfering with evidence, witnesses or any affected person.

6.0 In this case the victim is of 16 years of age and lives in the same vicinity. When considering the relationship between the victim and the accused and connections to each other as from the same village, the chances of the accused interfering with the victim who is 16 years old is very high.

7.0 The victim has become pregnant and the accused in his application for bail has said that if the families agree, that he wishes to marry the victim. The accused is charged with a very serious offence. It is the bounded duty of the court to ensure that the accused does not interfere with the witnesses or the victim.

8.0 Hence I find that the presumption in favour of bail is rebutted and I refuse to release the accused on bail.

Dated at Suva this 24th day of January 2012.

Priyantha Fernando
JUDGE