Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Wati v State [1997] FJHC 277; HAM0015.1997 (22 August 1997)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. HAM0015 OF 1997

Between

Prabha Wati
Applicant

And

The State
Respondent

Counsel: Mr. Nagin, Mr Kohli & Ms Narayan for Applicant
Mr. Naigulevu for Respondent

Hearing: 20th August 1997

Decision: 22nd August 1997

DECISION OF PAIN J. ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL

This is an application for bail pending trial.

On the 6th January 1996 the Applicant appeared in the Magistrates Court on a charge of attempted murder. Since that date she has been remanded in custody on that charge of attempted murder. Bail was refused in the Magistrates Court on the 2nd and 19th February 1996. She has now been committed to this Court for trial and has applied for bail.

The Applicant has now been remanded in custody on the charge of attempted murder for 1 year 7½ months. That is a long period for a person to be kept in custody without trial. However, the basic facts outlined do not reflect the reality of the situation.

On 17th October 1994 the Applicant had been charged with murder and remanded in custody. On 29th September 1995 she was granted bail by this Court because of lengthy prospective delay before her trial would be held. This further offence of attempted murder was alleged to have been committed on 5th January 1996 while she was on bail for the charge of murder. As a result, her bail on the murder charge was revoked by this Court on the 26th February 1996. The Applicant’s trial on the murder charge commenced in this Court in February of this year. It ended on the 25th May 1997. The Applicant was discharged when the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a Nolle Prosequi because a confession made by the Applicant had been ruled inadmissible.

Therefore, although the Applicant has been remanded in custody for 1 year 7½ months on the charge of attempted murder, for only 4½ months of that period has she been remanded on that charge alone. For the balance of 1 year 3 months she was remanded in custody on the murder charge as well.

Certainly the alleged commission of the attempted murder was the predominant reason for revoking bail on the murder charge. I said in that decision that "a person facing a murder charge and a further charge of attempted murder alleged to have been committed while on bail should not be released". However, the present remand in custody for 1 year 7½ months cannot be considered as a remand on the attempted murder charge alone. The remand on the murder charge is also of considerable significance when viewing the total situation.

Counsel for the Applicant submits that, because of the lengthy period that the Applicant has been in custody, bail should now be granted. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to meet any concerns that there may be about the applicant interfering with witnesses. For instance she is prepared to reside at Nadi and report daily to the Police.

Counsel for the Respondent opposes bail. He submits that the gravity of the alleged offence, the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of re-offending and the likelihood of interference with witnesses are reasons why bail should not be granted.

Certainly the accused has now spent a long time on remand in custody in respect of both charges. However, there is some substance in the arguments of the Respondent. The depositions do show a very strong prima facie case on the charge of attempted murder. The alleged facts indicate an offence of extreme gravity. There is evidence in the depositions that the Applicant initially influenced the witnesses to tell a false story to the Police. The alleged offence was committed when the Appellant was on bail in respect of a more serious charge.

I am not convinced that bail should be granted in this case. The proper solution is to arrange an early hearing for the trial. I have initiated steps that should achieve this. If it is not achieved a further bail application could be considered.

Accordingly, I order:

1. The application for bail is refused.

2. The case is set down for call-over on Friday 12th September 1997 at 9.30 a.m.

Justice D.B. Pain