Topu v State [2014] FJMC 42; Criminal Case 346.2012 (24 March 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 346/2012

BETWEEN:

SEFTON TOPU
APPPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Applicant in person
Ms. Navia for the State

Date Of Hearing : 24th March 2014
Date of Ruling : 24th March 2014

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicants with two others are charged in this Court for one count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree
   
2. The applicant is in remand custody and filed his bail application in this court on 24-02-2014. This Court earlier granted bail but as the applicant failed to appear on 10-09-2013 his bail was cancelled. The applicant submitted that as he was remanded by Lautoka High Court he failed to appear on that day.
   
3. The State objected to application submitting that the accused would fail to appear again if granted bail.
   
4. Section 03 of the Bail Act of 2002 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.
   
5. Section 17(2) of the Act stipulates that the primary consideration in granting bail is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge.
   
6. Section 19(1) of the Bail Act outlines the reasons for refusing bail and they are as follows:-
   
   1. The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;
      
   2. The interest of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or
      
   100. Granting bail to the accused would endanger the public interest or make protection of the community more difficult
        
7. 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".
   
8. I have considered the bail application and the objection filed by the State. The applicant is charged with a serious offence. The State is relying on the confession and therefore has a strong case against the accused.
   
9. Also from the court record I note that the State has earlier filed a previous conviction list of the applicant. From that the applicant got two convictions for Escaping from Lawful Custody.
   
10. Based on the reasons above, I am not satisfied that the applicant may surrender to custody and appear in court to the charges laid against him if granted bail. Therefore I refuse granting bail to applicant.
    
11. 28 days to appeal
    

24-03-2014

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva