Bulumakau v State [2013] FJHC 4; HAM02, HAM06.2013 (16 January 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Misc. Crim. Case No: HAM02 & HAM06 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 is applying for bail pending trial for the third time. Their earlier applications were refused by Madigan J. The applicants are jointly charged with one count of aggravated robbery. Three other co-accused persons are on bail.

[2] The State opposes the applications. The gist of the State's submissions is that the applicants are re-litigating the grounds upon which their earlier applications were filed.

[3] Since their earlier bid for bail was refused by this Court, I invited the applicants to show a material change in circumstances to justify reconsideration of bail. After listening to the applicants' submissions and perusing their earlier applications, I am not satisfied that there is a change in circumstances to reconsider bail. The applicants are indeed relying on the same grounds that were rejected by Madigan J.

[4] The applicants does not dispute that the charge in this case arose whilst they were on bail in other cases involving robbery. 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."

[5] The new charge relate to a home invasion robbery, in which the occupants were gagged, threatened and robbed of substantial cash and jewelries. According to the State, the applicants and his co-accused were allegedly caught with the stolen items in Savusavu while trying to flee.

[6] Taking all these matters into account, I am satisfied that, firstly, the applicants are unlikely to surrender to custody and appear for their trial, and secondly, granting bail to them would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.

[7] 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 the State