Niumataiwalu v State [2015] FJMC 60; Criminal Case 1076.2015 (3 June 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 1076/2015

BETWEEN:

JOSUA NIUMATAIWALU
APPPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Ms. K.Vulimandavo( Legal Aid) for the applicant
PC Josuha for the Prosecution

Date of Ruling : 03rd June 2015

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant with another has been charged with one count of Aggravated Burglary contrary to section 313(1) (a) of The Crimes Decree and one count of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree. This has been already transferred to the High Court pursuant to section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Decree and to be mentioned there on 12th June 2016.

2. In the meantime, the applicant has applied for bail from this Court for the following reasons.

a. Sole bread winner

b. Supporting two young children and also looking after the elderly mother

c. No beddings in the remand center

3. The prosecution is objecting for bail and the reasons are the seriousness of the charge, strength of the prosecution case and the public interest.

4. Section 03 of the Bail Act of 2002 stipulates that an 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 opposes 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: -

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

b. The interest of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or

c. Granting bail to the accused would endanger the public interest or make protection of the community more difficult

7. In IsimeliWakaniyasi v State ( 2010),FJHC 20;HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010), his Lordship Justice Goundar 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, the response as well the oral submission made by the learned counsel from the legal aid.

9. The accused has been charged with a serious offence with a maximum penalty of 17 years imprisonment. But this alone would not be a sufficient reason to refuse bail in this court. But I would consider the strength of the prosecution case also. There are admissions in his caution statement. The prosecution has informed that some of the stolen items were recovered from his possession (the Applicant also admitted) which would further strengthen their case.

10. Therefore the prosecution has satisfied this Court that accused would be unlikely to appear in the court to answer the charge. Accordingly I refuse bail to the applicant.

11. 28 days to appeal

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate