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

Nainoka v The State [2004] FJHC 261; HAM0072D.2004S (16 November 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO: HAM0072 OF 2004S

Between:

PITA NAINOKA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 10th November 2004
Ruling: 16th November 2004

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr. W. Kuruisaqila for State

RULING

The Applicant applies again for bail. Previously, bail was refused because I consider that it is not likely that he will surrender to custody, and because he has now been moved away from the Awaiting Trial Block and into the Sacau dormitory, which I consider complies substantially with the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

The Applicant is unhappy with the dormitory and questions his continued detention, when others with him have been released on bail. I do not consider that the issues he raise in relation to the dormitory are sufficient to justify a finding that the dormitory is inhumane and degrading. In particular he says that the table he eats on is only big enough for 10, and that when it rains there is leakage of water inside the dormitory. These complaints are not sufficient for a conclusion that the dormitory conditions have reached a level of seriousness and humiliation to qualify as a breach of section 25 of the Constitution.

For the removal of doubt, Eugene Ladpeter was released, not solely because of the condition of his cell, but also because he is likely to surrender to custody, has no previous convictions other than for one very minor offence, and has no history of escaping. Savenaca Pe was released because he was shifted on several occasions from the dormitory to the cells which were held by me to constitute inhumane and degrading conditions. Sakiusa Basa was released because the State agreed that he be granted bail.

The Applicant’s position is different from these other detainees. Indeed no two bail applications are ever the same, even when they are made on the same grounds. I am satisfied that the Applicant is not in inhumane conditions, and that he is unlikely to attend court if granted bail.

This application is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
16th November 2004