IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

HAM NO. 208 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

NACANIELI BAKATA
Applicant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Counsel : Applicant in person,
 Mr. A. Singh for Respondent

Date of Hearing : 17th of December, 2015
Date of Ruling : 23rd of December, 2015

BAIL RULING

1. The Applicant filed this application for bail on the 10th of June 2015. This is the second bail application of the Applicant. The first bail application of the Appellant was refused by this court on the grounds of public interest and protection of the community. This application is found on the following grounds, inter alia;

I. Need to support his family, 

II. Found an employment,

2.	The Respondent filed their objection in an affidavit of D/C 3788 Gupta, stating the grounds of objections. The Respondent's objections are mainly founded on the grounds of the unlikelihood of the Applicant appearing in court, public interest and the protection of the community. 
3.	Subsequent to the filing of objections, the matter was set down for hearing, where both parties informed the court that they rely on the written submissions that have already filed in. Having considered the bail application, respective submissions and objection filed by the Respondent, I now proceed to pronounce my ruling as follows. 

4.	Section 30 (7) of the Bail Act states that;

 "A court which has power to review a bail determination, or to hear a fresh application under section 14 (1), may, if not satisfied that there are special facts or circumstances that justify a review, or the making of afresh application, refuse to hear the review or application". 

5.	Accordingly, a hearing of afresh bail application constitutes two components. The applicant is first required to satisfy the court that there are special facts or circumstances to justify the making of afresh application. If the court is satisfied with the first component, it would then proceed to hear the afresh bail application.

6.	The Applicant stated that he has secured an employment, which I considered as a change of circumstances. 

7.	The primary consideration of granting of bail is the likelihood of surrendering to custody and appearing in court. Section 18 (1) of the Bail Act has stipulated that the party seeking to rebut the presumption in favour of bail must deal with following three grounds, they are; 

I. The likelihood of the accused person surrendering to custody and appearing in court;

II. The interests of the accused person;

III. The public interest and the protection of the community.

8. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant is charged with a serious offence and if found guilty, it carries a harsh punishment. Moreover, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant is adversely recorded with 25 previous convictions including convictions for forfeiture of bail bond and resisting arrest. Presently, the Applicant is having about 12 pending criminal cases against him including one matter in High Court of Lautoka. It is further alleged that the Applicant has committed this alleged offence, while he was on bail. 

9. In view of the Applicant's adverse record of previous convictions and the pending criminal cases, it appears that there is a high likelihood of the Applicant committing an offence while on bail. Having considered the reasons discussed above and the fact that the hearing of the substantive matter is already fixed, it is my opinion that this application for bail should not be allowed on the ground of public interest and protection of community. I accordingly refuse this application of the Applicant and dismiss the same. 

R. D. R. Thushara Rajasinghe
Judge

At Lautoka
23rd of December, 2015

Solicitors : Applicant in person
 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions