In the magistrates court
At suva

Criminal Case No. 743/11

DPP

v.

Pita Ragolea Driti

BAIL RULING

[1]	The Accused, PITA RAGOLEA DRITI, was charged with two counts of seditious offences and inciting to mutiny.

Statement of Offence
Count 1

SEDITIOUS OFFENCES: Contrary to section 67(109b) and 66(1)(i) of the Crimes Decree of 44 of 2009

Particulars of the Offence

[2]	PITA RAGOLEA DRITI between the 1st day of August, 2010 to 31sr October 2010 at Suva in the Central Division uttered seditious words wherein he stated that "AG should be removed for he is influential in a lot of critical decision which is deemed to be mooring the Government away from its charged course" and that "the Commander has lost his plot and has been webbed by the AG and his other aids" and that "Commander RFMF no longer have the leadership anointment and he has lost credibility and Commander RFMF needs to be removed from his position" and that "if His Excellency the President refused to accept the proposal than there is no other option but to remove his Excellency", 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 law established.

Statement of Offence
Count 2

INCITING TO MUTINY: Contrary to section 72 (1)(a) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009

Particulars of the Offence

PITA RAGOLEA DRITI between the 1st day of February 2010 to 30th day of November 2010 at Suva in the Central Division knowing that Manasa Ralawa Tagicakibau is serving in the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, attempted to seduce Manasa Ralawa Tagicakibau from his duty and allegiance to Fiji and to commit a mutinous and traitorous act of overthrowing and removing the Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces and Prime Minister and his Cabinet including the Attorney-General.

The Accused, PITA RAGOLEA DRITI has been charged with 2 counts. 

Count No. 1 – Seditions Offences contrary to section 67(109b) and 66(1)(i) of the Crimes Decree of 44 of 2009. 

Count No. 2 – Inciting to Mutiny Contrary to section 72 (1)(a) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009. 

The Accused, through his Counsel Mr. Vosarogo now applies for Bail.

DPP Position

Counsel for DPP objects to bail citing the following reasons:-

a)	The Charges for the Accused are very serious.
b)	Count to attract a maximum penalty of 15 years.
c)	Both offences are indictable offences.
d)	That the Court has a primary duty to ensure that the Accused come to Court for trial and the State is concerned he may not come to Court to answer the Charges against him. 

The DPP have however stated that if the Court is minded to grant Bail that stringent conditions be imposed including deposit of the Accused passport into Court.

Counsel for Accused
Counsel for Accused has asked for Bail submitting that there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that his client will abscond. Mr. Vosarogo had referred to Section 17 of the Bail Act where the Court must take into account the time a person may spend in custody before trial if Bails is not granted. He further submitted that pertaining to section 3 Bail must be granted unless the prosecution can show/produce evidence that the Accused is a Bail risk and that this presumption has not been displaced by the prosecution. That his client has brought his passport to Court and can deposit that with the Court today. That his client is in a semi-retired mode and is a respectable member of the community he lives in and he has a permanent address.

This Court has carefully considered the application for Bail and arguments against Bail by 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 to answer the charges against him on the next Court date. I have carefully considered the submissions before the Court and I am satisfied that the Accused will come to Court on the next Court date.

He, through his Counsel has brought his passport to Court today to surrender to the Court. Whilst the charges are very serious against the Accused, the setting of a trial date has not been considered. Full Disclosures have yet to be served on the Accused by DPP.

There is also the legal issue and subject to the Court's discretion of whether or not this case, because of Court 2 should be transferred to the High Court remains to be decided by this Court.

In view of the above consideration, I have decided to grant Bail with the following conditions:

Fresh Bail Conditions

1.	Fresh Bail in the sum of $2000
2.	The Accused is to report to the nearest Police Station every Friday between 6am to 6pm at Valelevu Police Station.
3.	The Accused shall reside at the following address and not to move from there without the express permission of the Court: Lot 62, Tacirua Housing subdivision. 
4.	The Accused shall not reoffend while out on Bail. 
5.	The Accused shall not interfere with Police witnesses while out on bail
6.	The Accused is to deposit his passport with the Court, today if he has it or by 10.00am tomorrow on 5/5/11.
7.	The Accused shall come back to Court on 1/6/11 for mention only.

Legal Submissions

The issue of transfer to be filed and served by the next Court date, on 1/6/11.

DPP requested a copy of the Bail ruling and conditions available on 5/5/11.

Court Receives passport of the Accused. Passport No. 001820. Date of Expiry is on 4/6/2018.

(sgd) ………………………………
Alofa Aiva Seruvatu
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

11 May 2011.