Serelevu v State [2013] FJHC 635; HAM221.2013 (22 November 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM 221/2013

BETWEEN :

WATISONI SERELEVU
APPLICANT

AND :

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

COUNSEL : Applicant in Person
Mr S Nath for the State

Date of Hearing : 08.11.2013
Date of Ruling : 22.11.2013

BAIL RULING

[1] The Applicant Watisoni Serelevu had applied for bail pending trial for the third time.

[2] The Applicant has been charged for Rape under Section 207(1) (b) and (3) of the Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009.

[3] That Applicant applies for bail on the following grounds:

(1) That he is the sole breadwinner of his family with three children.

(2) That his wife is sick.

(3) That he is 50 years old.

(4) That he has a sickness.

[4] State objecting for bail submits that the alleged offence was committed on his biological daughter on three occasions in the year 2011.

[5] The victim is the biological daughter of the Applicant and in terms of Domestic Violence Decree; this is a domestic violence offence. Therefore, in terms of Section 3(4) (c) of the Bail Act, the presumption in favour of granting bail is displaced.

[6] Section 19(1) of the bail act provides that an accused person must be granted bail by court unless:

(a) the accused person is unlikely to surrender to court custody and appear in court to answer charges laid;

(b) the interest 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.

[7] The Applicant submits that he needs bail in order to look after his family and his health.

[8] The Applicant's children were looked after by a church pastor. From 16/08/2013 the Social Welfare had taken over their custody and presently they are being looked after by the Social Welfare Department.

[9] The prosecution is relying on the direct evidence of the victim, her younger sister, her mother and Caution interview Statement of the Applicant.

[10] The Applicant is charged with Rape under Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009. Rape is in itself viewed as most serious sexual offence which attract maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[11] The witnesses in this case are all related to the Applicant. The offence is committed on his biological daughter. Thus the likelihood of interfering with state witnesses is very high.

[12] Considering all these into account it is not in the interest of justice to grant bail to Applicant. Therefore the application for bail is refused.

[13] 30 days to appeal.

P Kumararatnam
JUDGE

At Suva
22/11/2013