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

Saqasaqa v The State [2003] FJHC 228; HAM0045D.2003S (23 December 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CR. MISC. CASE NO: HAM0045 OF 2003S

Between:

ILIASERI SAQASAQA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 5th December 2003
Ruling: 23rd December 2003

Counsel: Mr. T. Fa for Applicant
Mr. S. Qica for State

RULING

The Applicant, who is charged with robbery with violence has applied for bail pending trial. He made one application in the Magistrates’ Court but it was refused on the 20th of November 2003. He now applies for bail in the High Court.

The grounds for applying are that his trial is now fixed for April 2004 before Mr. Rokoika, that he has no other cases pending, that his last conviction for the offence of robbery with violence was in 1992, and his last conviction was for dangerous driving in 2000, that he is living in a stable de facto relationship with his partner who is pregnant and unemployed and that he has a good defence to the charge.

The State opposes bail. It relies on the affidavit of Corporal Jale Dokonivalu, which states that the Applicant was jointly charged with two other persons, that one of them has pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to four years imprisonment, that another defendant has been released on bail, that a pistol was used in the robbery and that it was never recovered, that the Applicant is alleged to be a principal participant in the robbery and that the release of the Applicant is likely to interfere with the on-going investigation. In particular one of the alleged robbers is still to be apprehended.

The Applicant is charged as follows:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to section 293(1)(b) of the Penal Code Cap 17.

Particulars of Offence

ILIASERI SAQASAQA with others on the 9th of October 2003 at Suva in the Central Division, assaulted and robbed KAMLESH CHAND s/o Ram Jiwan cash $3,761, cheques $249.70, $493.96 and $60.00, to the total value of $4,164.60, the property of SUPREME FUEL LIMITED and immediately before such robbery threatened to use personal violence to the said KAMLESH CHAND s/o Ram Jiwan.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to section 293(1)(b) of the Penal Code Cap 17.

Particulars of Offence

ILIASERI SAQASAQA with others, on the 9th day of October 2003 at Suva in the Central Division, assaulted and robbed RAJESH KUMAR PATEL s/o Ramesh Bhai Patel cash of $400.00 and immediately before such robbery threatened to use personal violence to the said RAJESH KUMAR PATEL s/o Ramesh Bhai Patel.

The offences are alleged to have taken place at the Shell Distributors at Walu Bay in Suva. Although both parties have referred to the Applicant’s previous record, neither has filed it with the affidavits. I am therefore in no position to ascertain the length and nature of the record. Nor have I been given a copy of the bail ruling of the Magistrates’ Court.

The Applicant has a right to bail. The presumption in favour of bail must be rebutted by the State, the three main considerations being, the likelihood of appearing in court for trial, the rights of the accused, and the public interest. In this case the State does not say that the Applicant is unlikely to appear in court. It says that he is likely to interfere with the investigations because one suspect is still on the run and a pistol used in the robbery is yet to be found.

The offences are clearly very serious indeed, and if found guilty, the Applicant is likely to face a long prison term. This is particularly so because of the value of the items stolen, the use of a firearm and the fact that there are two counts on the charge sheet.

However, no matter how serious the alleged offence, bail should be granted unless it is not in the public interest to grant bail. In this case I am satisfied that it is not in the public interest to grant bail. The firearm alleged to have been used is still to be seized. The police clearly believe that the Applicant will obstruct such seizure. One suspect is still at large and almost all the money is yet to be recovered. Again the police believe that the Applicant will obstruct such recovery. One of his co-defendants has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced. He is helping the police with their enquiries. Clearly the release of one of the defendants, who is believed by the State to be a principal offender, will jeopardise the investigation.

In the circumstances I accept that the continued custody of the Applicant is in the public interest. However I cannot accept that custody until April 2004 is either necessary or justified in all the circumstances. The Bail Act requires review of bail every 14 days.

I therefore order that this matter be called before me on the 6th of January 2004. On that day the State must file a further affidavit to justify continued detention. If it is not so justified, bail will be granted on that day.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
23rd December 2003