Marama v State [2013] FJHC 46; HAM278.2012 (12 February 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: HAM 278 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

KELERA MARAMA

AND:

STATE

Counsel : Applicant – In Person
Mr. T.Qalinauci for the State

Date of Ruling : 12 February 2013

BAIL RULING

[1] The Applicant above named filed an application for bail and submits following grounds:

(a) Entitled for bail under Section 3(1);

(b) Period in remand (23 months);

(c) Remand prison is overcrowded.

[2] State Counsel objects for bail and submits the following factors:

(a) The Applicant is facing serious charge namely murder;

(b) The Applicant is facing a re-trial;

(c) The Applicant was granted bail and she did not surrender to her bail hence a bench warrant was issued on her. From April 2010 to March 2011. She was at large;

(d) She was brought to Court under arrest and remanded;

(e) The Applicant is a flight risk.

[3] Section 3(1) of the Bail Act state as follows:

"3.-(1) Every accused person has a right to be released on bail, unless it is not in the interests of justice that bail should be granted"

[4] Section 3(3) states as follows:

"3.(3) There is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to a person but a person who opposes the granting of bail may seek to rebut the presumption."

[5] Section 17 of the Bail Act states as follows:

"17.-(1) When deciding whether to grant bail to an accused person, a police officer or court, as the case maybe, must take into account the time the person may have to spend in custody before trial if bail is not granted.

(2) The primary consideration in deciding whether to grant bail is the likelihood of the accused person appearing in court to answer the charges laid against him or her.

(3) When a court is considering the granting of bail to a person who has appealed against conviction or sentence the court must take into account-

(a) the likelihood of success in the appeal;

(b) the likely time before the appeal hearing;

(c) the proportion of the original sentence which will have been served by the applicant when the appeal is heard."

[6] Considering the submissions of both the Applicant and the State I find the Applicant is a flight risk as stipulated under Section 17 of the Bail Act.

[7] I find the State had successfully rebutted the presumption as required under Section 3(3) of the Bail Act.

[8] Considering all above factors I find the Applicant is a flight risk hence I refuse to grant bail.

[9] Application for bail is dismissed.

[10] 30 days to appeal to Court of Appeal.

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
12 February 2013

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