Bulumakau v State [2013] FJHC 3; HAM002, HAM006.2013 (16 January 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM002 & HAM006 of 2013

BETWEEN:

TEVITA BULUMAKAU
SAMUELA BAVORO
Applicants

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 15 January 2013
Ruling: 16 January 2013

Counsel: Applicants in person
Mr S. Vodokisolomone & Ms P. Low for State

RULING

[1] This is a second application for bail pending trial by the first applicant. The second applicant has had his earlier two applications for bail refused. The applicants are jointly charged with one count of aggravated robbery. Three other accused persons have been granted bail. The applicants' earlier applications for bail were refused by Madigan J.

[2] Since this was a second and a third application for bail, the applicants were invited to demonstrate a material change in circumstances to justify grant of bail to them. After listening to their submissions and perusing their earlier applications for bail, I am not satisfied that there is a material change in circumstances to grant bail.

[3] Both applicants allegedly re-offended whist on bail. Although the new charge is not in any way an indication of guilt, the factor is of considerable importance when determining the likelihood of the accused person committing an arrestable offence while on bail. As was said by Hopper L.J. in R v. Crown Court at Harrow [2003] 1 WLR 2756, 2778:

"The fact that the new offence appears to have been committed whilst on bail is likely to be a factor of considerable importance against the defendant when deciding whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released, he would commit a further offence while on bail."

[4] Both applicants have allegedly committed a new robbery while on bail in another case involving a robbery charge. Robbery is a violent offence. The new charge relate to a home invasion robbery where the occupants were gagged and threatened by a group of men. Shortly after the robbery, the applicants were arrested at a police check point. The prosecution's case is based on strong circumstantial evidence of recent possession of the alleged stolen items.

[5] Taking all these matters into account, I am satisfied that, firstly, the applicant is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear for his trial, and secondly, granting bail to him would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.

[16] The applications are refused.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Labasa
16 January 2013

Solicitors:
Applicants in person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Labasa for State