State v Vananalagi [2010] FJMC 148; Criminal Case 37.2010 (8 March 2010)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: 37 of 2010

STATE

V

1. SEREVI VANANALAGI
2. ROPATE NAISUA
3. IOWANE SALACAKAU
4. SAMUELA RAKOPETA

For Prosecution: Inspector Harish
Accuseds: In Person

BAIL RULING

1. Fourth Accused in this case is already enlarged on bail and First, Second and Third accuseds made this verbal application for revival of bail.
   
2. According to sec. 14 (1) of the Bail Act No. 26 of 2002, accused person can make any number of bail applications as long as they are not frivolous or vexatious.
   
3. According to sec. 30 (7) of the Bail Act, the court which is reviving the bail application have to satisfy that there are special facts or circumstances to justify the review or fresh bail application.
   
4. Following grounds set out as grounds for seeking bail by each accused.

First Accused

a). Your have to look for a solicitor.

b). You want to go to the hospital to get your medical report.

c). Sole bread-winner of the family and asking for strict bail conditions.

Second Accused

a). Conditions of the prison is inhuman and inmates getting skin diseases.

Third Accused

a). You don't have any previous convictions.

5. Prosecution objected to bail, stating that all of you have several previous convictions and pending cases against your names.
   
6. On 11th January 2010, court ordered the prosecutor to provide all the details with regard to the previous convictions of the accuseds. According to the information supplied to the court by the prosecutor, first accused has 4 previous convictions and one is for breach of curfew order. First accused has another previous conviction for escaping from lawful custody. Second accused has 19 previous convictions and two convictions are for escaping from lawful custody. As mentioned by the third accused, he doesn't have any previous convictions against his name.
   
7. This case contains seven counts and three are for "Robbery with violence". The first accused is named in all seven counts. Second and Third accused are charged with first four counts.
   
8. Whilst committing alleged robberies all accused said to have used violence against three innocent people.
   

Bail for third accused

9. Prosecutor informed the court that the third accused has no previous convictions. Hence, I proceed to enlarge the third accused on bail subjected to same bail conditions I imposed on the fourth accused on 11th January 2010 with necessary changes to the closest police station.
   

Revival of bail for First and Second accused

10. According to the requirements of the Bail act, accused should satisfy the court with special facts or circumstances. Above-mentioned grounds by no means can be considered as special facts.
    
11. Both the first and second accuseds are known for escaping from lawful custody and first accused has a previous conviction for breach of curfew order imposed by the court.
    
12. Both of your previous convictions are the best evidence for your character. Even though in the present case, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, those previous convictions have already proved to the court that you will never stop committing crimes. If you were ever remorseful of your life pattern you would not have committed those subsequent offences after your first conviction.
    
13. Apart from your previous convictions prosecutor has mentioned the court that you have some pending cases against you. None of you have denied that fact. I have no assurance whatsoever, that you will lead a crime free life if enlarged on bail.
    
14. Number of your previous convictions show that how many times you have put others' lives or property in danger. Given a further opportunity you would continue to do the same. Hence, I consider that both of you are a threat to the protection of the Fiji community.
    
15. Maximum penalty for "Robbery with Violence" is life imprisonment. With your history and seriousness of the present case, if you get convicted, it is likely that you would receive at least 14 years imprisonment term.
    
16. Since full set of disclosures had already being served on both of you, I see no further reason to delay the hearing of this case.
    
17. According to the above-mentioned grounds I consider that this bail revival application with regard to the first and second accused is frivolous and refuse granting bail. I accept the application of the third accused and enlarged him on bail on the above-mentioned conditions.
    
18. Even though it was not revealed at the time of granting bail, the fourth accused has 15 previous convictions against his name. Therefore, I see no reason to change his bail conditions.
    
19. All of you have 28 days to appeal.
    

On this Monday the 08th day of March 2010.

Kaweendra Nanayakkara
Resident Magistrate