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

Raivotu v State [2012] FJHC 975; HAM036.2012 (23 March 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Miscellaneous Case No.: HAM 036 of 2012

BETWEEN:

JOHN RAIVOTU JUNIOR
Applicant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel : Applicant in Person
Mr. Niudamu for Respondent

Date of Ruling : 23rd March 2012

RULING

1. The Applicant above named is charged with the offence of Found in Possession of Illicit Drugs, contrary to section 5 (a) of the Illicit Drugs Act. 2004. He applies for bail pending trial.
   
2. Applicant submitted that he is married with 2 children. Wife is 25 years old and two children are aged 6 years and 1 year. Due to him being in remand, his wife is suffering from depression.
   
3. He further submitted that he is a student at Fiji National University and fee is already fully paid by his sponsors. He has to sit for the examinations. His father depends on him to do his business. He complains of lack of facilities in prison such as sleeping on the floor, toilets not in working order, skin diseases are visible to the eye and they are vulnerable to these diseases.
   
4. In terms of section 3(3) of the Bail Act, there is a presumption in favour of granting of bail to accused persons and who opposes the granting of bail may seek to rebut the presumption.
   
5. The reasons where the bail can be refused, is enunciated in section 19 (1) of the Bail Act, which states;
   

An accused person must be granted bail unless in the opinion of the police officer or the court, as the case may be _

(a) The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;

(b) The interests of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or

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

6. In terms of section 19 (2) of the Bail Act, as regards the likelihood of surrender to custody, accused previous criminal history and the seriousness of the offence may be considered. As regards the public interest and the protection of the community, among other things mentioned in the section, the likelihood of the accused committing an arrestable offence while on bail may be considered.
   
7. Objecting to bail being granted, the state submitted that, on the evidence obtained from the Officer-in-charge of the Suva Prison, medical orderlies are available every morning and sick prisoners will be referred to the doctor who visits the prison every Tuesday.
   
8. The offence of Found in Possession of Illicit Drugs attracts a fine not exceeding $1000,000.00 or imprisonment for life or both, which shows the seriousness of the offence.
   
9. The accused has 19 previous convictions which includes offences of Manslaughter, Robbery with Violence, Act with intent to cause grievous harm and 4 convictions for Found in possession of illicit drugs. Further, offence in the instant case was alleged to have been committed while a suspended sentence of 2 years imprisonment against the applicant was in force.
   
10. Therefore the likelihood of the applicant committing an arrestable offence while on bail is very high. The likelihood of the applicant absconding from court is also very high. This will override the grounds urged by the applicant in this case.
    
11. For the above reasons I find that the presumption in favour of granting of bail is rebutted and I refuse to release the applicant on bail.
    

Priyantha Fernando
Judge

At Suva

Friday 23rd March 2012