IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. HAM 201 OF 2013S

JOSEFA RAWALAI SAQANAVERE

vs

THE STATE

Counsels: Mr. A. Vakaloloma for Accused
Ms. J. Prasad for State
Hearing: 6 September, 2013
Ruling: 4 October, 2013
Written Reasons: 15 May, 2014

WRITTEN REASONS FOR REFUSAL OF BAIL

1.	In High Court Criminal Case No. HAC 251 of 2013S, the accused faces three counts of "money laundering", contrary to section 69 (2) (a) and (3) (a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1997.

2.	The case will be tried from 11 to 22 August 2014, ie. a 2 weeks trial. It is approximately 12 weeks away. The accused applied for bail pending trial on 23 August 2013, and I ruled against the same on 4 October 2013. I said I would give my written reasons later. Below are my reasons.

3. It is well settled that an accused is entitled to bail pending trial, unless the interest of justice requires otherwise. The test for bail is whether or not the accused will turn up on the date arranged to take his trial. In deciding the above, the court must consider the factors laid down in section 19 of the Bail Act 2002.

 Factor No. 1: Likelihood of Accused's Surrender to Custody:

4. There is no denying that the charges against the accused are serious, and if he's found guilty he faces a prison sentence exceeding 7 years. The prosecution said, that while on bail in the Magistrate Court, he had not complied with his bail conditions. In fact, on 28.6.13, he was convicted of breach of bail in the Suva Magistrate and was fined $100. In the High Court, he failed to appear on 9 August 2013, and a bench warrant was issued against him. In my view, under this head, his chances of bail are slim.

 Factor No. 2: Interest of Accused:

6. The trial is 12 weeks away ie. from 11 to 22 August 2014. He has been in custody since 6 September 2013, ie. he had been in custody for approximately 8 months. However, if he's found guilty, time in remand will be deducted from his final sentence. He is represented by able counsel, and he can visit him in custody to take instructions. There is a new remand centre, and he can enjoy new facilities. There appears to be no reasons for him to be at liberty for other lawful reasons. He is not incapacitated. In my view, his chances of bail under this head are slim.

Factor No. 3: The Public Interest and Protection of the Community:

7. The allegations against the accused are very serious. Although, he's innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, in my view, it is in the public interest and the protection of the community that he be remanded in custody until trial time. 

Conclusion:

8.	Given the above, I denied his bail on 4 October 2013. The above are my reasons.

Salesi Temo
JUDGE

Solicitor for Accused : Vakaloloma and Associates, Suva.
Solicitor for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.