Vuli v State - Ruling on Bail [2015] FJHC 649; HA016.2015S (10 September 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 016 OF 2015S

BETWEEN:

JEKESONI VULI
APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsels : Ms. M. Tarai for Applicant
Mr. T. Qalinauci for Respondent
Hearing : 1 July, 2015
Ruling : 10 September, 2015

RULING ON BAIL

1. In Suva High Court Criminal Case No. HAC 174 of 2014S, the accused with another is facing an home invasion "aggravated robbery" contrary to section 311(1)(a) at the Crimes Decree 2009. It was alleged that the accused with others, on 1 May 2014, invaded the complainant's house at 2am in the morning, while his family was asleep, threatened them with weapons, ransacked their house, and stole $31,350 worth of properties.
   
2. The accused had been remanded in custody since 2 June 2014. He had been in custody for approximately 1 year 3 months. On 7 February 2015, the accused applied for bail. The prosecution had already filed their disclosure documents on 25 August 2014. On 1 July 2015, I heard the parties. I then adjourned the matter for my ruling, which in written below.
   
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 the grant of bail was whether or not the accused will turn up in court on the date arranged to take his trial. In considering the above issue, it was mandatory for the court to take into account the factors mentioned in section 19 of the Bail Act 2002.
   

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

4. The accused was 42 years old, at the time. He had lived in Nadonumai all his life. He was married with two children, but had been divorced for the past 14 years. He lives alone in his house and is a market vendor. According to the prosecution, they had a strong case against him. He allegedly confessed to the crime. If found guilty after trial, he faced a possible 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. The case will be heard from 8 to 12 February 2016, that is, 4 months away. He had been in custody for approximately 1 year 3 months. The court is empowered to hold people in remand for 2 years prior to trial. In any event, time spent in custody while in remand will be deducted from his final sentence if he's found guilty. At the moment the accused is in the new Suva Remand Centre. He is represented by Legal Aid lawyers who can visit him in custody, as and when they pleased. There appears to be no need for him to be at liberty for other lawful reasons. He is not incapacitated. Under this head, his chances of bail are slim.
   

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

6. The allegation against the accused is a very serious one. It is an alleged attack on a family in their own house early in the morning when they were asleep. The accused was allegedly part of a group that attacked the family with weapons. Although the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, 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. Under this head, the accused's chances of bail are slim.
   

Conclusion

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

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for Applicant : Office of Legal Aid Commission, Suva.
Solicitor for Respondent : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.