IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 16 of 2013

BETWEEN:

RAVINESH DEO
APPLICANT

AND

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Mr. E. Moapa for Applicant
Ms. Low for State.

Hearing: 22nd February, 2013
Ruling : 25th February, 2013

RULING ON AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING TRIAL

[1]	On 2 January 2013, the applicant was charged with one count of arson, contrary to section 362 (a) of the Crimes Decree. It is alleged that the applicant with another wilfully and unlawfully set fire to the Westpac Bank in Labasa.

[2]	The co-accused was granted bail in the Magistrates' Court on 7 January 2013.

[3]	The applicant had also applied for bail in the Magistrates' Court but his application was refused by the learned Magistrate. The leaned Magistrate gave the following written reasons for refusing bail to the applicant: 

 "In this case, whilst I find that the accused was not on bail but serving a sentence extra-murally when he was charged with this new offence, the bringing of this most serious charge, allegedly committed whilst serving an extra mural sentence inevitably points to a real likelihood that the accused could re-offend if granted bail. I do not have to be satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is sufficient if I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he is likely to re-offend whilst on bail. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused is likely to commit an arrestable offence if granted bail, and bail is refused accordingly."

[4]	The learned Magistrate relied on the bail decisions in State v Tuimouta Criminal Case No. HAC 078/2008 (18 August 2008) and Williams v State Criminal Misc. Case No. HAM 079/2008 (8 October 2008) where the Court held that when an accused is faced with a new allegation while on bail, the test is whether there is a likelihood of the accused committing a further arrestable offence on bail.

[5]	It was held in R v Crown Court at Harrow [2003] 1 WLR 2756, at 2778 that "the fact that new offences appear to have been committed whilst on bail is likely to be a factor of considerable importance against the defendant when deciding whether there is substantial grounds for believing that, if released, he would commit a further offence while on bail."

[6]	In Etuate Suguturaga v The State Crim. Misc. Case No. HAM 067 of 2010 this Court stated that the Bail Act emphasizes the importance of this factor in Section 19 (2) (c) (iii). Section 19 (2) (c) (iii) states that the court must have regard to:

"the public interest and the protection of the community – the likelihood of the accused person committing an arrestable offence while on bail."

[7]	The State's primary objection to bail is based on section 19 (2) (c) of the Bail Act. The applicant does not dispute that the new charge against him arose while he was an extra-mural prisoner. Last year, the applicant was given a custodial sentence in an unrelated matter. On 12 November 2012, he was released from the prison to serve his remaining sentence extra-murally at the Korowiri Madhir temple, until 14 January 2013.The new offence was allegedly committed on 11 December 2012, that is, within one month from being released to serve sentence extra-murally.

[8]	The prosecution case is substantially based on the applicant's confession under caution. The applicant says the confession was involuntarily obtained by the police. The voluntariness of the confession, of course, will have to be determined in a voir dire. If the State succeeds to prove that the confession was made freely and voluntarily, then the weight to be given to the confession is a matter for the assessors at the trial. 

[9]	At this stage, the case has not been assigned a trial date. However, the court takes notice of the fact that trials in the High Court Labasa are held between 6-12 months from the date of transfer from the Magistrates' Court.

[10]	The applicant further relies on his personal circumstances to seek bail. He looks after his mother who is 60 years old. He has a sugar cane farm to look after and pay off his debts. He seeks bail on strict conditions.

[11]	While I do not consider the applicant to be a flight risk, there is a real likelihood of the applicant committing another arrestable offence if granted bail. The personal circumstances of the applicant are not so compelling to grant bail. The present allegation is indeed very serious. The allegation is that the applicant wilfully torched the Westpac Bank located at the centre of Labasa town. If convicted the applicant may not escape a custodial sentence.

[12]	For the reasons given, bail is refused pursuant to section 19 (1) (c) of the Bail Act. The applicant is to remain in custody on remand pending trial.

[13]	The application is refused.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Labasa
Monday, 25th February, 2013

Solicitors:
Babu Singh & Associates for Applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Labasa for State