The Chief Magist/b> after hearing their pleas in mitigation sentenced the athe applicant and his co-accuseds "to 18 months imprisonment".
On 10th January 1996 the applicant lodged a Petition of Appeal against his conviction onon on the ground that his "... (guilty) plea was an equivocal plea as one of the accused told the Court that it was all his fault and that the appellant
(applicant) and other accused did not know anything about the drugs"; and against the sentence as being "... harsh and excessive having regards to the facts".
On the same day the applicant lodged the present application seeking his release on bail pending the hearing and determination of
his appeal. The affidavit filed with the application raises various matters in support, including: the applicant's relative youth and previous clean record; the equivocal nature of his plea; his state of health; and his marriage
on the day before the incident.
In particular, the affidavit deposes the applicant was merely the driver of the van in which theh the drugs were found and that he
had no prior knowledge of the drugs being in the van. Reference was also made to the possibility that "... the sentence may be served because of the delay that may be caused in (the) preparation of the Court Record."
I confess that att sight the question of 'delay' appeared unco unconvincing. This was a case involving a guilty plea which was disposed of in a day and it did not appear likely that
the record would be a long one.
In this latter regard and in order to better inform itself as to the lower coer court proceedings, this Court requested and obtained
an uncertified typed transcript of the Magistrate Court record which as expected, extends to a mere 4 pages.
Upon perusing the record of proceedings I was immediately struck by the marked 'inconsistency' in the trial magistrate's record of what was apparently said by ACCUSED 1 (the applicant) in mitigation, and what was deposed in the affidavit in support. In the affidavit the applicant was made out to be "the innocent driver" whereas, the court record, suggests the applicant was the self-proclaimed "criminal mastermind"! Both versions could not be correct and the hearing was stood down to allow counsel time to unravel the 'mystery'.
Upon resumption, counsel for the applicant informed the Court that he hen instructed that the M Magistrate Court record had incorrectly attributed the second accused's plea in mitigation to the applicant and vice versa.
The Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for his part aconsulting the relevant polt police prosecutor and examining the police docket confirmed that the plea in mitigation
of 'ACCUSED 2' as recorded in the Magistrate Court record was consistent with the answers given by the applicant in his police interview.
Despite that confirmation however, the Deputy Director felt constraio oppose the application onon on the ground that the Magistrate Court record on its face, disclosed sufficient evidence to support the applicant's conviction and any success in the appeal against sentence was necessarily limited to a reduction of the applicant's sentence to no less than 12 months
imprisonment which is the minimntence prescribed by law.
The principles that guide a Court on an application such as the nt are discussed in the jude judgment of the Fiji Court of Appeal in Apisai Tora and Others v. R. (1978) 24 F.L.R. 28 where it states:
"It has been a rule of practice for many years that where an accused person has been tried (and) convicf an offence and sentenced
nced to a term of imprisonment, only in exceptional circumstances will he be released on bail during the pendency of an appeal. This
is still the rule in Fiji. The mere fact that an appeal is brought can never of itself be such an exceptional circumstance and a
court to which an application for such bail is made is very seldom in a position to assess the appellant's chances of success in
his appeal. As a general rule the merits of an appeal are not relevant to the applications such as those now before the Court, though
there may be cases in which they are a factor to be taken into consideration."
The question which the Court must therefore ask itself is: 'Are there 'exceptional circumstances' in the case which warrants the applicant's release on bail pending the determination of his appeal?'
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that having regard to the equivocal nature of the applicant's guilty plea there is every
likelihood of the appeal against conviction succeeding.
In this regard the applicant said in mitigation:
"I admit that the drugs were found in my car. I did not know that it was dangerous drugs until the police told me about it.
I own the car. The first accuired me for $100 to go to Lautoka to purchase the drug. He did not inform me that he was goas going to
purchase the drugs ..."
This is confirmed in material respects by the plea in mitigation of the second accused (incorrectly attributed to the applicant) where he states: 
