Rokotuiveikau v State [2022] FJHC 378; HAM176.2022 (11 July 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL MISC NO. HAM 176 OF 2022

[HC Criminal Case No. HAC 007 of 2022]

MANASA ROKOTUIVEIKAU

V

STATE

Counsel: Ms M Naidu for the State

Accused in Person

Date of Hearing: 11 July 2022
Date of Ruling: 11 July 2022

RULING

[1] The State objects to the granting of bail to the accused who is charged with aggravated robbery with three others.

[2] The allegation is that the accused in the company of others robbed a shop and immediately before stealing used physical force on the cashier.

[3] On 28 March 2019, the accused was sentenced to an aggregate term of 6 months imprisonment, 3 months to serve and 3 months suspended for 2 year, after he pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and theft (Criminal Case No HAC24/2019).

[4] On 7 December 2020, the accused was convicted after trial of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment (Criminal Case No HAC281/2019).

[5] Apart from his previous convictions, the accused has two other pending cases before the High Court. In HAC 378/19, he is charged with aggravated robbery and the trial is fixed to commence on 3 October 2022.

[6] In HAC 196/21, he is charged with aggravated robbery and the trial is fixed to commence on 27 March 2023.

[7] The charge in the present case arose on 19 December 2021. This new allegation arose while the accused was on bail in other unrelated cases.

[8] Under the Bail Act, three considerations are relevant, namely, the likelihood of the accused appearing in court, the interests of the accused and the public interest and the protection of the community. The court may refuse bail for any one of these reasons.

[9] The allegation against the accused is serious and if he is found guilty, he is facing 20 years imprisonment for aggravated robbery. He does not have an impressive track record with two recent previous convictions for similar offences. His other pending cases also involve allegations of use of violence to steal from others. These matters lead me to conclude that releasing him on bail would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.

[10] Bail refused.

. ...........................................
Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Accused in Person