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

Serelevu v State [2013] FJHC 438; HAM134.2013 (26 July 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM 134/2013

BETWEEN :

WATISONI SERELEVU
APPLICANT

AND :

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

COUNSEL : Mr Vakaloloma for the Applicant
Ms Amelia Vavadakua for the State

Date of Hearing : 23/07/2013
Date of Ruling : 26/07/2013

BAIL RULING

1. The applicant WATISONI SERELEVU had applied for bail pending trial second time.

2. The applicant has been charged for one count of Rape under Section 207(1) and (2)(b) of the Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009.

3. That applicant applies for bail on the following grounds:

(1) That he is the sole breadwinner of his family with two children.

(2) That he has to continue his employment to pay his solicitor.

4. State objecting for bail submits that the alleged offence was committed on his biological daughter on three occasions in the year 2011.

5. The victim is the biological daughter of the applicant and in terms of Domestic Violence Decree; this is a domestic violence offence. Therefore, in terms of Section 3(4) (c) of the Bail Act, the presumption in favour of granting bail is displaced.

6. Section 19(1) of the bail act provides that an accused person must be granted bail by court unless:

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

(b) the interest 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.

7. The Applicant submits that he needs bail in order to maintain his children and to earn money to pay his solicitor.

8. Up to now his children are being looked after by church pastor. From 16/08/2013 the Social Welfare will take over their custody.

9. The prosecution is relying on the direct evidence of the victim, her younger sister, her mother and Caution interview Statement of the Applicant.

10. The Applicant is charged with one count of Rape under Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009. Rape is in itself viewed as most serious sexual offence which attract maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

11. The witnesses in this case are all related to the Applicant. The offence is committed on his biological daughter. Thus the likelihood of interfering with state witnesses is very high.

12. Considering all these into account it is not in the interest of justice to grant bail to Applicant. Therefore the application for bail is refused.

13. 30 days to appeal.

P Kumararatnam
JUDGE

At Suva
26/07/2013