Brown v State [2013] FJMC 401; Criminal Case 1678.2013 (19 November 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 1678/2013

BETWEEN:

TIMOCI RAITAMATA BROWN
APPPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Applicant in person
Miss. Darshani Kumar for the State

Date of Ruling : 19 November 2013

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant is charged with two others in this Court for the following offences.
   
   1. One count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree
      
   2. One count of Theft of Motor Vehicle contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree
      
2. The applicant is in remand custody and the High Court gave extended jurisdiction to hear this case on 27 September 2013.
   
3. The applicant filed bail application asking for bail on 18 October 2013. The reasons for bail are as follows.
   
   1. That he is the sole bread winner in his home and others are financially dependent in him.
      
   2. His farm is neglected.
      
   100. He needs to look after the education and welfare of his family.
        
4. The State filed their objections on 14 November 2013. The respondent objected this application based on following grounds.
   
   1. The likelihood of the applicant surrendering to custody
      
   2. Public interest
      
5. Applicable law could be found in Bail Act of 2002. Section 03 of the said Act provides that the accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted. The presumption of granting bail to a person could be rebutted by the party who oppose to it and in this case the State has to rebut that.
   
6. Section 17(2) of the Act states that the primary consideration for bail is the likelihood of the defendant appearing in court to answer the charges laid against him or her.
   
7. Section 19(1) of the Bail Act states:-
   

" An accused person must be granted bail unless in the opinion of the police officer or the court, as the case may be-

(a) the accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;

(b) the interests of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or

(c) granting bail to the accused person would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult."

8. In Isimeli Wakaniyasi v State (2010), FJHC 20; HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010), His Lordship Justice Gounder held that "All three grounds need not exist to justify refusal of bail, existence of any one grounds is sufficient to refuse bail".
   
9. In Tak Sang Hao v The State [2001] FJHC 15 Her Ladyship Justice Shameem endorsed Adesh Singh $ Ors and set down the factors that are relevant to a bail application. These relevant factors are:
   
   1. The presumption of innocence;
   2. Whether the accused person to appear to stand trial;
   3. Whether bail had been refused previously;
   4. The seriousness of the charges;
   5. The likelihood of the accused person re-offending on bail;
   6. Any interference with prosecution witnesses;
   7. The accused person's character;
   8. The accused person's right to prepare his defence;
   9. The likelihood of further charges;
   10. The State's opposition to bail.
       
10. The respondent submitted that the applicant has 09 previous convictions with one for Forfeiture of Bail Bond and the prosecution has a strong case against the applicant that includes testimony of eye witnesses. Also the offences are serious.
    
11. Therefore the State submitted that if they are granted bail the applicants are unlikely to appear in the Court and also granting bail would endanger the public interest.
    
12. I have carefully considered the bail application as well as objections raised by the State.
    
13. The applicant is charged with serious offences with the maximum penalty for the first offence being 20 years imprisonment. The State is going to rely on direct evidence as well as testimonies of eye witnesses. Also the applicant has 09 previous convictions and one was for Forfeiture of Bail Bond.
    
14. After considering these I believe the applicant is unlikely to surrender to custody if granted bail in this case and also granting bail would endanger the public interest.
    
15. Therefore I refuse granting bail to the applicant.
    
16. 28 days to appeal
    

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate,