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

State v Mara [2011] FJMC 61; Criminal Case 742.2011 (11 May 2011)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE''S COURT
AT NAVUA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: 742/2011

DPP

.v

RATU TEVITA ULUILAKEBA MARA

BAIL RULING

[1] The Accused, RATU TEVITA ULUILAKEBA MARA, was charged with the offence of:

Statement of Offence

SEDITIOUS OFFENCE: Contrary to section 67(1) (b) and 66(1)(i) of Crimes Decree 2009.

Particulars of the Offence

[2] RATU TEVITA ULUILAKEBA MARA, between the 1st day of June, 2010 to 31st July 2010 in South Korea uttered seditious words wherein RATU TEVITA ULUILAKEBA MARA stated ""Sa rui fucknas na veiliutaki ni matanitu, sa yaga me ratou fukoff ke sega me ratou vakagalalataki [translation] The Government leadership is really fucknas, thus the need for them to fuckoff or removed"" in the presence of certain subjects of His Excellency the President and Commander in Chief of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, and the Prime Minister and Commander of the Fiji Military Forces, namely MANASA RALAWA TAGICAKIBAU and others and, thereby purported to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite dissatisfaction against the Government of Fiji as established.

The Accused, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara applies for Bail. Ratu Tevita has been charged with seditious offences contrary to section 67(1) (b) and 66(1)(i) of Crimes Decree 2009.

The DPP have objected to Bail. The reasons given are that:-

1. the offence is against the State
2. the Charges are serious
3. The Court needs to secure the presence of the Accused at trial. DPP however had stated that if the Court is minded to grant Bail that stringent conditions be given and that the Accused deposit his passport with the Court.
   

Counsel for the Accused on the other hand had submitted that the charges against his client is not exceptional and that most of the offences in the Courts are against the State and are serious. That this is a charge that can be tried summarily in the Magistrates Court which his client has opted for.

That section 19 requires of the Bail Act 2008 states that every person must be granted Bail unless there is evidence before the Court that the Accused will not surrender to custody and appear in Court to answer the Charges laid.

That his client is a first offender. That he has fully cooperated wit the Police with regard to his case.

That Full Disclosures have not been served and no trial date has been set and there is no reason why his client should be incarcerated. That the Accused''s Bail will not make the protection of the community difficult.

That his client is willing to deposit his passport with the Court and comply with the normal conditions of Bail.

I have carefully considered the application for Bail and the submissions of both the DPP and counsel for the Accused.

The primary consideration for Bail is the question of whether or not the Accused will come to Court on the next Court date to answer the Charges against him.

Having considered both submissions I am satisfied that the Accused will come to court on the next Court date to the Charges.

Fresh Bail is therefore granted in the sum of $2000.

The Accused is to report to the nearest Police Station every Friday between 6am to 6pm.

The Accused shall reside at 278 Princess Road, Tamavua and shall not move from there without the express permission of the Court.

The Accused shall not reoffend while out on Bail.

The accused shall not interfere with police witnesses while out on Bail.

The accused shall come to Court on the next Court date. This matter is adjourned for mention only on 30/5/11 in Court No. 3 before the Acting Chief Magistrate Mr. Ratuvili.

The Accused is to deposit his passport with the Court by 10am tomorrow, 5/5/11.

Full Disclosures to be served at the next Court date.

Fresh Bail with conditions.

...............................................
Alofa Aiva Seruvatu
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

11 May 2011