IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO:
HAM 62 OF 2012 AND 63 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

PAULA BETE

AND:

STATE

Counsel : Applicant in person
Mr. T. Qalinauci for the Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 9th May 2012
Date of Bail Ruling: 10th May 2012

BAIL RULING

1.	The applicant above named submitted two applications for bail. Since he had submitted same grounds and the substantive matters are also similar. Both applications were considered and issued with one Ruling.

2.	The applicant had submitted following grounds for his bail:

a)	Married with a 6 year old child;
b)	Presumption of innocence;
c)	Sole bread winner of the family;
d)	Family is a flood victim;
e)	Prosecution does not have a strong case

3.	State objects for bail and submits as follows:

a)	The applicant is charged with multiple counts of theft and aggravated burglary;

b)	The properties were public property belongs to Telecom Fiji Limited;

c)	Both substantive matters are similar to each other

4.	I consider Section 3(1) of the Bail Act states as follows:

a)	Every accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interests of justice that bail should be granted;

b)	Bail may be granted by a court, subject to section 8(2), by a Police Officer;

c)	There is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to a person but a person who opposes the granting of bail may seek to rebut the presumption.

5.	I am in total agreement with the Applicant that under the Bail Act bail is the rule and refusal is exception. But when we consider Section 3(1) of the bail act is has limitations.

6.	Considering the decision made by Justice Shameem in Tak Sang Hoa v The State (2001) FJHC 15 and Justice Fatiaki in Adesh Singh & Others Miscellaneous Act No. 11 and 12 of 1988. I consider the following factors:

a)	The presumption of innocence;

b)	Whether the accused to appear to stand trial;

c)	Whether bail has been refused previously;

d)	The seriousness of the charges;

e)	The likelihood of the accused re-offending on bail;

f)	Any interference with prosecution witness;

g)	The acccused's character;

h)	The accussed's right to prepare his defence;

i)	The likelihood of further charges;

j)	The State's opposition to bail

7.	Considering the nature of the offence, stealing of properties such as cables, steel plate covers of sewerages belongs to State and State institutions have become prevalent in our society today.

8.	The government had passed a special Decree called "Scrap Metal Trade Decree 2011 (22 of 2011). This shows the prominence and importance given by the State to safeguard the Public Properties.

9.	Considering both the application for bail and submission by the State I am of the view that the applicant falls within the ambit of Section 19 of the Bail Act.

10.	Now I consider Section 19(1). Now I refer to Section 19 (1) of the Bail Act

19. (1) an accused person must be granted bail unless in the opinion of 
the police officer of the court, as the case may be- 

2.	The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody an appeal in court to answer the charges laid;

3.	The interests of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or

4.	Granting bail to the accused person would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.

11.	Considering the nature of the offence I agree with the State Prosecutor that the Applicant will be endangering the public interest set out in Section 19(1) (c) of the Bail Act. In Isimeli Wakaniyasi v The State (2010) FJHC 20; HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010). His Lordship Justice Goundar states that:

"All three grounds need not to exist to justify refusal of bail. Existence of any one ground is sufficient to refuse bail".

12.	Considering all I am of the view that it is with public interest that 	the Applicant remains in remand pending trial.

13.	Applications for bail are refused.

14.	30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
10th May 2012

Solicitors : Applicant in person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for Respondent