Ciri v State [2016] FJMC 242; Criminal Case 1280 of 2012 (21 December 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 1280/2012

BETWEEN : UNAISI CIRI

MEREWALESI SUKADIMURI

APPPLICANTS

AND : THE STATE

RESPONDENT

Date of Ruling : 21^st of December 2016

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicants with others are charged with one count of Harboring prisoners contrary to section 52(3) (c) of the Prisons and Corrections Act 2006.
2. They were remanded by this Court after failing to appear whilst on bail and now applying for bail for following reasons :

1^st applicant

1. Single mother with 4 year old daughter;
2. Sister is looking after the daughter.

2^nd applicant

1. Sole bread winner;
2. Got a child to look after.

3. Section 13(1) (h) of the 2013 Constitution states that a person who is arrested or detained has right to be released on reasonable terms and conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless the interests of justice otherwise require.
4. Further Section 03 of the Bail Act of 2002(“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.
5. Section 3(3) states that there is a presumption of granting bail to the accused and person who opposing it has to rebut that.
6. But this presumptionwill be displaced if an accused has previously breached a bail condition or convicted for an offence and appealing against the conviction (Section 3(4) of the Act).
7. In this case the both applicants have breached the bail conditions by failing to appear in the Court. Hence the presumption of bail is not applicable for both applicants.
8. The primary consideration in granting bail in a criminal case is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge(section 17(2) of the Act )
9. Section 19(1) of the Act outlines the reasons for refusing bail in a case 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
10. 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".
11. The applicants were granted bail by this Court with surety on 23/10/2010. The 1^st applicant started absconding from 11/03/2013 whilst the 2^nd applicant was appearing randomly in the Court and also started absconding from 26/04/2016.
12. Even though both applicants are submitting about their personal hardships they have failed to explain the reasons for not coming to the court. In fact both made no effort to appear in this Court and were arrested and produced by the police after I have issued bench warrants against them.
13. In view of above history of both applicants, I am not satisfied they would appear in the Court if granted bail again.
14. Hence I refuse bail for both the applicants and remand them further in this case.
15. 28 days to appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate