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

State v Marvick [2004] FJHC 150; HAC0027D.2004S (7 September 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0027 OF 2004S

STATE

v.

CHARLES MARVICK

Hearing: 6th September 2004
Ruling: 7th September 2004

Counsel: Ms K. Bavou for State
Accused in Person

Ruling on Bail

The Applicant is charged with 2 counts of robbery with violence, 2 counts of wrongful confinement, 2 counts of unlawful use of motor vehicle, 2 counts of driving without a licence, 2 counts of driving without insurance and 1 count of escaping from lawful custody. His trial will be held in the High Court, and he applies for bail pending trial. The State opposes bail.

The Applicant applies for bail on the ground that his wife is working and does not take good care of their two small children. The Applicant said that his wife is very busy with her own social life and that he needs bail to ensure that their children are attending school. He has been in custody for over a month and the trial is unlikely to proceed before November.

The State said that in the course of the investigations, on the 20th of August 2004, the Applicant was taken, in police custody to the Melrose Night Club in Carnavon Street to identify a suspect, when he escaped from custody. He was arrested 3 days later. The State further says that the charges are serious and that there is a strong likelihood that he will not appear to face charges.

I agree. Accused persons facing serious charges must accept that when they escape from police or prison custody while their charges are pending, demonstrate a lack of reliability in relation to future court appearances. It follows that bail is likely to be refused because of this demonstrable lack of reliability. In this case, the Applicant has not been convicted of the escaping offence, but he told me in court that he did indeed remove himself from the police at the Melrose Club. He said he did so to find the suspect the police were looking for, but he does not appear to deny that he escaped from their custody. He also said he had not been handcuffed. That, however, is not the issue. The issue is that he agrees to have escaped from the custody of the police in the course of investigations, less than one month ago.

In the circumstances, it is not in the public interest to grant bail. Bail is refused. There is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of this decision.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
7th September 2004