IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM 205/2012

BETWEEN :

EPARAMA MANI
APPLICANT

AND :

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

COUNSEL : Applicant in Person
 Mr. Fotofili for the State

HEARING DATE : 24.01.2013
RULING DATE : 14.02.2013

RULING

1. 	The applicant EPARAMA MANI had applied for bail pending trial.

2. 	The applicant has been charged for one count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311(1) (b) and one count of causing Grievous Harm contrary to section 258 of the Crimes Decree No: 44 of 2009.The case number is HAC/99/2010.

3.	That the applicant is seeking bail on the following grounds:

i)	That he wants to seek assistance of a lawyer of his choice to represent him in court.

ii)	That the case against the Applicant is very weak. 

4. 	Section 3(1) of the Bail Act states that an accused has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted. Consistent with this principle, section 3(3) of the act provides that 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. 	The primary consideration in deciding whether to grant bail is the likelihood of the accused person appearing in court to answer the charges laid against him or her. (17(2)

6. Where bail is opposed, section 18(1) requires that the party opposing bail addresses the following considerations:

(a) the likelihood of the accused person surrendering to custody and appearing in court;
(b) the interest of the accused person:
(c) the public interest and the protection of the community.

7. 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.

8.	Section 19(2) of the Act sets out a series of considerations that the court must take into account in determining whether or not any of the three matters mentioned in section 19(1) are established.

9.	The State opposes the bail. The State submits that after releasing from prison in the month of July 2012 he has been arrested for another offence of Aggravated Robbery and produced before Suva Magistrate Court under case No: CF 1001-12.

10. 	The applicant is charged for one count of Aggravated Robbery and one count of causing Grievous Harm and he is in remand for this case since 17th of August, 2012.(HAC 99/2010)

11.	State submits that the applicant has 26 previous convictions and 19 are in operational period. 

12. 	Trial date has been already set in this case. Trial will be taken up between 04-15/03/2013. 

13. 	The primary consideration in deciding whether to grant bail is the likelihood of the accused person appearing in court to answer charges laid against him.

14. 	Considering all these factors into account, especially Applicant's previous convictions and pending Magistrate's Court case, it is not in the interest of justice to grant bail to the Applicant. 

15. 	Bail refused.

16.	30 days to appeal.

P.Kumararatnam
JUDGE

At Suva
14/02/2013