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

State v Chand [2004] FJHC 155; HAC0025.2004 (4 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: HAC0025 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

DHARMEND CHAND

Date of Hearing/Ruling: 4th October, 2004

Counsel: Mr. D. Toganivalu – for State
Accused – In Person

EX TEMPORE RULING ON BAIL NO.2

Background

The background to this matter is summarized in my first Extempore Ruling on Bail.

At his 14 day call over this accused although unrepresented nonetheless wished to proceed with a further bail application. I note this morning that he has had the kind services of the court translator, he has been reminded of his constitutional rights to representation and his ability to apply for legal aid. Regarding that matter he has applied for legal aid but they have indicated that he should plead guilty, no doubt basing that advise on his admissions to the police and previous criminal history. He has chosen to ignore that advise and he will write and tell Legal Aid he intends to deny the charge and nonetheless seeks the assistance of a legal aid lawyer.

Despite those reminders he wants to proceed with his bail application unrepresented.

The Application

He says in this application that although he doesn’t have a lawyer he can live with his sister and brother-in-law. That before jail he had a job earning $3.50 per hour as a joiner. He wants to get bail so he can go outside and earn money to pay a lawyer.

He says that he saw in last Thursday’s paper in Lautoka an Indian boy charged with raping and robbing a Japanese tourist nonetheless received conditional bail. He pleads that he didn’t rape or assault this victim and that based on this precedent and the prospects of having permanent accommodation and a job I should change my mind from the earlier ruling and grant him bail.

Successive applications for bail within the same jurisdiction require a genuine change in circumstances before the court can be motivated to alter its previous decision.

I find there to be no such change in circumstances in this application.

The fact of the matter is that this accused a man with a criminal history of several offences for dishonesty, assaults and importantly confinement and attempted rape as early as April of 2003 and a six month sentence of imprisonment for larceny on the 1st of March 2004 seeks to motivate the Court to grant him bail. Nothing has changed. The Court can have absolutely no reliance on his desire or willingness to answer to bail when called.

Accordingly as there are no changed circumstances this Court is not motivated to alter its earlier decision and bail is denied. The accused is remanded in custody for appearance before me on the 18th of October 2004 at 9.30am. I order his production on that day.

Gerard Winter
JUDGE

At Suva
4th October, 2004