IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0043 of 2004S

STATE

v.

URAIA RADULE;
JOSEFA MAVOA; and
MATEO TALEA

Hearing: 28th April 2005
Ruling: 5th May 2005

Counsel: Ms P. Madanavosa for State
Mr. A. Vakaloloma for 1st Accused
Mr. N. Vere for 2nd and 3rd Accused

BAIL RULING

On the 4th of February 2005, all three Accused made bail applications. I refused bail on the ground that the 1st Accused lived in the Waibau area, where the witnesses live, and that the 2nd and 3rd Accused had pleaded guilty to robbery with violence and awaited sentence. Subsequently, the 2nd and 3rd Accused vacated their pleas of guilty, and made a second bail application on the 29th of March 2005. I refused that application on the ground that the prosecution had a strong prima facie case based on their confessions, and that they faced a most serious charge of murder. Their trial is fixed for September 2005.

They now make further bail applications. All are charged with the murder of Lin Guan Zhi on the 26th of November 2004. When their trial commences, they will have been in custody for a total of 10 months. They are also charged with robbing Lum Moon Woot on the 26th of November.

The 1st Accused who is represented by Mr. Vakaloloma applies for bail on the grounds of pre-trial length of custody, the Applicant’s good character and youth (he is 20 years old), the lack of likelihood of offending whilst on bail and the high likelihood that he will appear for trial.

Mr. Vere for the 2nd and 3rd Accused also applies for bail on their behalf. He said that the Accused could not pay him his fees, and that he had come to an arrangement with them, that he would waive his fees if they worked for him free of charge on his farm in Tailevu. This would ensure legal representation for them at trial. He further said that their confessions to the police were likely to be excluded when challenged during the trial on the ground of police assault, and that there was no other evidence against his clients.

State counsel objected to bail, saying that the 1st Accused had raised no new grounds, and that there was a risk to the public in allowing the 2nd and 3rd Accused to work (without payment) in the very environment where they had allegedly committed the offences on the Information. He further said that the question of the admissibility of the confessions was a trial issue, and that before trial, the court must assume their admissibility.

There is no doubt at all that the Accused are alleged to have committed the most serious offences. Further, they live in the same area as the victims, and most of the witnesses in the case. Clearly there is a strong public interest in ensuring their remand before trial. The period of remand is not excessive, and I am not persuaded that the 2nd and 3rd Accused should be released only for the purpose of working for their counsel. I agree that there is a potential risk to the people of Waibau, Naitasiri. Finally, I agree with State counsel that the papers disclose a strong prima facie case, subject of course to what occurs during the trial.

In the circumstances, bail is refused for all Accused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
5th May 2005