Waqa v State - Ruling on Bail [2015] FJHC 648; HAM024.2015S (9 September 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 024 OF 2015S

BETWEEN

ALIFERETI ISOA WAQA
APPLICANT

AND :

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsels : Applicant in Person
Mr. Y. Prasad for Respondent
Hearing : 3 July, 2015
Ruling : 9 September, 2015

RULING ON BAIL

1. In Suva High Court Criminal Case No. HAC 131 of 2014S, the accused with another are charged with "aggravated robbery" against Mr. Rakesh Prasad Charan involving $112,697 worth of properties, contrary to section 311(1)(a) at the Crimes Decree 2009. Both accuseds had pleaded not guilty to the charge.
   
2. The case will be tried from 30 May to 8 June 2016, beginning on 30 May 2016 at 10am. The accused had been remanded in custody since 16 May 2014. He had been in custody for approximately 1 year 3 months. He applied for bail on 27 February 2015. The prosecution replied with an affidavit on 4 June 2015. I heard the parties on 3 July 2015.
   
3. It is well settled that an accused person is entitled to bail pending trial unless the interest of justice requires otherwise. The test for bail was whether or not the accused will turn up in court on the date arranged to take his trial. In considering the above, the court is duty bound to consider the factors outlined in Section 19 of the Bail Act 2002.
   

Factor No. 1: Likelihood of Accused's Surrender to Custody

4. The accused was 36 years old. He is married with 5 children. He resides at Lami. He is unemployed. According to the prosecution, their case against the accused was strong. He allegedly confessed to the crime. If found guilty after trial, he faces a possible prison sentence of 14 years imprisonment and up. Under this head the accused's chances of bail are slim.
   

Factor No. 2: Interest of the Accused

5. Trial had been set from 30 May to 8 June 2016. It is 9 months away. The accused had waived his right to counsel. He is at present in the new remand facilities in Suva. If he's found guilty after trial, time spent in remand will be deducted from his final sentence. There does not appear to be any valid reasons for him to be at liberty for any lawful reasons. He is not incapacitated. Under this head the accused's chances of bail are slim.
   

Factor No. 3: Public Interest and Protection of the Community

6. The allegation against the accused was very serious. The complainant was allegedly attacked in his own house and $112,697 worth of properties were stolen from his house. The accused allegedly confessed to been part of the group that robbed the complainant. Although the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, the allegation is very serious, and in my view, it is in the public interest and the protection of the community that he be remanded in custody, until further orders of the court.
   

Conclusion

7. For the above reasons, the accused's bail application is denied. He is remanded in custody until further orders of the court.
   

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for Applicant : In Person
Solicitor for Respondent : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Nausori.