State v Koroi Junior [2024] FJHC 602; HAM229.2024 (27 September 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAM 229 of 2024

STATE

-v-

NOA KOROI JUNIOR

State: Mr. Naimila, T (State Counsel) of DPP’s office
Accused: Present in person

Bail Hearing: 11^th September, 2024
Bail Ruling: 27^th September, 2024

BAIL RULING

1. The Applicant filed an application for bail.
   
2. The Applicant submits following grounds for bail:
   

(a). THAT he is the sole bread winner of his family;

(b). THAT he also takes care of his elderly father; and

(c) THAT he is a single father to three young children whose ages are 7, 5 and 3 years.

3. The Prosecution objected to bail and filed the affidavit of the Investigation officer namely DC 6071 Ratu Nemani Kaitu on 19^th September 2024.
   
4. The Prosecution in their respond to the Applicant’s application for bail stated as follows;
   

Likelihood of the Applicant surrendering to custody and appearing in court

(a) THAT the Respondent has a strong case against the Applicant. The Respondent is relying on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of recent possession of the stolen properties. The Applicant and his accomplice were in possession of the recent stolen properties which were positively identified by the complainants shortly after it was stolen and there were no reasonable explanations by the Applicant in regards to their possession of the stolen properties.

(b). THAT the Applicant was initially granted bail on the 24^th of March 2023 and failed to appear on the 1^st of June 2023. Hence State made an application for Bench Warrant.

(c) THAT the Applicant was on Bench Warrant for more than a year since 1st June 2023 until he was arrested and produced in Court on the 31^th of July 2024.

(d). THAT the Applicant changed his address without notifying the Court and failed to surrender himself for more than a year.

(e ) THAT the Applicants initial Sureties namely Ms. Akanisi Sokoiwasa of Naivurevure, Naitasiri and Ms. Mereti Rokoseka of Vuci Road Nausori were ordered by His Lordship Justice Bulamainaivalu to pay a fine of $1000.00 each for failing their duties as Sureties and the fact that the Applicant had failed to appear in Court.

(f) THAT the Respondent submits that if the Applicant pleads guilty or is convicted, the Applicant faces the maximum penalty for Aggravated Burglary which is a sentence of 17 years Imprisonment.

(g) THAT considering the circumstances, nature and seriousness of the offence, and the fact that the accused has previously breached his bail conditions and had absconded bail it is unlikely that he will surrender to custody.

(h) THAT although the Applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, given the evidence against the Applicant, circumstances and seriousness of the offence, the likely imprisonment term if convicted and previous history of absconding bail, the respondent submits that there is a chance that the Applicant would unlikely attend to his future Court dates if he is enlarged on bail.

5. I consider section 3(1) of the Bail Act 2002 and it states as follows:
   

"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."

6. Considering the nature of the offence and the submission by the Applicant and the affidavit of the Investigation officer filed by State in response, I am of the opinion that the Applicant should not be granted bail.
   
7. According to the Investigation Officer’s affidavit, the Applicant was initially granted bail in this matter on 24^th March 2023. When this case was called on 1^st June 2023 the Applicant was not present and a bench warrant was issued against him. He was apprehended and produced in Court on 31^st July 2024.
   
8. Section 3.-(4)(a) of the Bail Act 2002 states:
   

“4. The presumption in favour of the granting of bail is displaced where –

(a) the person seeking bail has previously breached a bail undertaking or bail condition.”

9. The Applicant’s absence from court without a reasonable excuse for more than a year is a justification for refusal of bail. He has failed to observe an important bail condition.
   
10. Applicant’s application for bail is declined.
    

..................................
Waleen M George
Acting Puisne Judge

Dated at Suva this 27^th day of September, 2024

Solicitors: Applicant In Person

Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for Respondent