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

  Download original PDF

Matairatu v State - Ruling on bail application [2013] FJHC 182; HAM253.2012S (12 April 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 253 OF 2012S

ANTONIO MATAIRATU

vs

THE STATE

Counsels : Ms. M. Fong for State
Mr. A. Vakaloloma for Accused
Hearing : 11th March, 2013
Ruling : 12th April, 2013

RULING ON BAIL APPLICATION

1. On 12th October, 2012, I heard the accused's first bail application, with his co-accused in Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 136 of 2012S. After carefully considering his application, and the State's objection, I refused bail on 1st November, 2012, and said I would give my reasons later. That reasons were given earlier today.
   
2. On 26th November, 2012, the accused filed a second bail application in the standard High Court Bail Application Form. Before that application was considered, he filed a third bail application on 14th December, 2012. Before that application was considered, he filed his fourth bail application, through his counsel, on 12th February, 2013. This application was via a notice of motion and affidavit in support. I will deal with all the above applications together. The State has responded to the above with an affidavit in reply from the police investigating officer, DC 2627, Napolioni Nakibo.
   

3. In any new bail application, the fundamental question was always whether or not there was a change in circumstances, from when the first bail ruling was decided. In this case, the first bail ruling denying the accused's bail was done on 1st November, 2012, and the written reasons were given today in Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 136 of 2012S.

4. I have carefully read all the papers submitted by the accused and his counsel. I have also carefully read the prosecution's objection. I have also considered matters contained in the substantive file, Criminal Case No. HAC 284 of 2012S. In this case, the accused allegedly confessed to police in his caution interview statement that, he was the one who poured diesel fuel on the structure of the court house and set the same alight [see Question and Answer 38 of his caution interview statement]. The allegation against the accused is certainly very serious.

5. In my view, in the light of the factors mentioned in section 19 of the Bail Act 2002, and highlighted in the Written Reasons I gave today for Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 136 of 2012S, there was no change in circumstances since his bail application was first refused on 1st November, 2012. His present applications are therefore denied.
   

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for the Accused : Mr. A. Vakaloloma, Barrister & Solicitor, Suva.
Solicitor for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.