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

Buksh v The State [2006] FJHC 22; HAM007D.2006S (23 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM0007 of 2006S

Between:

SHAKIR R. BUKSH
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 20th January 2006
Ruling: 23rd January 2006

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr. P. Bulamainaivalu for State

RULING ON BAIL

This is the second application by the 1^st Accused for bail pending trial. He now raises prison conditions, and inability to prepare for trial.

The State objects to bail, saying that the 1^st Accused is an escape risk, that he has previous convictions, that there is a risk of interfering with one of the prosecution witnesses (who is a close relative of his) and that the trial is now due to start only a month hence. State counsel called the Officer-in-Charge of the Korovou Prison to give evidence of the conditions of the 1^st Accused’s custody.

Superintendent Satakala gave evidence that the 1^st Accused complained that he was intimidated by his co-defendants in the remand cells. He was therefore transferred to the prison hospital or infirmary. The infirmary contains beds with mattresses, flush toilets (from 7am to 5pm daily and buckets during the night), and access, on request, to telephones.

The 1^st Accused complained also of the cooking facilities. The Officer-in-Charge said that although care was taken to maintain good sanitation in the kitchen, the standard of hygiene could be improved.

Having heard his evidence (with which the 1^st Accused had no real dispute) I accept that the conditions of custody in the prison infirmary are in conformity with the UN Minimum Standard Rules and with section 25 of the Constitution. Certainly, it is regrettable that the Applicant is held there with convicted prisoners. However, that fact is probably unavoidable in a prison of the size of Korovou. On its own, it does not render the infirmary inhumane and degrading. In contrast to the cells, which confine three men to a cell with little ventilation, no exercise and unsanitary toilet facilities for 23 hours a day, the infirmary satisfies human rights standards on the confining of prisoners. Finally, the Applicant has now been given many opportunities to contact relatives and counsel. He has contacted one lawyer with success. There is no reason why he should not be ready for trial on the 20^th of February.

For the same reasons I have given formerly, bail is therefore refused.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
23^rd January 2006