Fefele v Regina [2005] SBHC 24; HCSI-CRC (18 November 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

ALICK FEFELE

v

REGINA

Applicant
Respondent
(Goldsbrough J)

Date of Hearing: 28 October 2005
Date of Judgment: 18 November 2005

Alick Fefele is charged with attempted murder, and 3 other offences arising out of the same incident. That incident is alleged to have occurred in the year 2000. He has been in custody in relation to these matters since September 2003. He now makes application to this court for bail pending trial.

The prosecution object to bail on the grounds that the accused may fail to answer bail or may interfere with prosecution witnesses. In support of that application the prosecution refers to the circumstances of the fourth charge against the accused, namely intimidation. The allegation is that Mr. Fefele threatened a police officer in the course of the investigations into these offences. Other than this, the prosecution suggest that Mr. Fefele has a propensity to violence, and may fail to answer his bail fearing a substantial custodial sentence in the event of a conviction. Mr. Fefele has several previous convictions.

Inquiries into the allegation are complete the matter has on one occasion been set down for trial. That trial date has passed and a new trial date has been set in 2006.

Apart from one other accused that remains in custody on this and other matters, all co-accused have been released on bail. Whilst the court must take the allegation of intimidation as supporting the proposition that the accused may interfere with witnesses, it does not in my view give this court substantial grounds to believe that he would interfere with witnesses now. Given that he has already spent more than two years in custody and that there are no ongoing inquiries into this allegation, I do not believe that this is a ground to continue to refuse to admit this man to bail.

The allegation is a serious allegation. There may be grounds to believe that the accused may not attend his trial, although this could be said of any person facing a serious charge. That itself in the absence of any history of failing to answer bail or failure to comply with conditions of bail does not persuade me that this man cannot be admitted to bail.

Whilst I do not conclude that the time has arrived at which Mr. Fefele can say that he has been in custody for so long that the release provisions in the Constitution apply to him, I do take into account the length of time already spent in custody for these allegations and the time he will still have to wait before the court hears and determines this matter.

Bail is therefore granted to Mr. Fefele subject to conditions of reporting, residence and surety acceptable to the court.

Goldsbrough J

18 November 2005