IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA

Case No: 1001/12

BETWEEN:

EPARAMA KOI MANI
APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Applicant : - In person.
Respondent : - Mr Prakash, State Counsel (for DPP).

BAIL RULING

1.	 This is an application for bail pending trial. 

2.	The accused-applicant, (hereinafter referred as the Applicant), stand charged on a count for having committed the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery' punishable under Sections 311(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.

3.	The alleged offences were committed on 14.07.2012.

4.	Initially the matter was referred to the High Court on a jurisdictional concern and later it was remitted back to this Court with extended jurisdiction of the High Court.

5.	The respondent furnished disclosures to the applicant and he sought time to arrange legal representation for him. Meanwhile the applicant made this application for bail.

6.	The respondent raised objection for the said application. The state counsel further submitted a written submission to substantiate their objection. 

7.	This application is governed by the provisions of the Bail Act No 26 of 2002, which provides a heavy presumption in favour of granting bail pending trial to an accused person. 

8.	Section 3 of the Bail Act 2002 states that 'an accused person has a right to be released on bail...' and that 'there is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail'. Although the favour of these words is more towards applicant, view of this Court is, it does not invest an absolute right on him to be released on bail.

9.	The party opposing bail has to rebut this presumption on balance of probabilities. Bail should be granted unless the Court is satisfied of any one or more of the considerations set out in section 19(1); where it says,

(a) The accused is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in Court;

(b) The interest of the accused will not be served through granting bail;

(c) Granting bail would endanger the public interest or create a situation where the protection of the community will be more difficult.

 All 3 grounds need not exist to justify refusal of bail. Existence of any one ground is sufficient to refuse bail. { Wakaniyasi v State [ 2010 FJHC 20]} 

10.	The primary consideration of the Court in deciding whether to grant bail is the likelihood of the accused person appearing in Court to answer the charges laid against him or her.

11.	At the outset I note that the charge against the applicant carries a maximum punishment of 20 years imprisonment if found guilty. It is indeed a serious offence. The defendant states that the case for prosecution is strong. The alleged incident took place in joint enterprise. The total value of the robbed items was $ 4000. 

12.	The defendant submits that the applicant has 26 previous convictions and out of his convictions 4 are for robbery with violence. 

13.	Further the applicant's application for bail; does not disclose that he has any strong ties with the community.

14.	Having considered the foregoing facts, I conclude that the previous criminal history and the community background of the applicant are such that 'interests of justice' make ineffective the 'right of the applicant to be released on bail'.

15.	The applicant of this case is not entitled to be released on bail pending trial. 

16.	Application for bail is dismissed accordingly.

17.	Applicant is advised on his right to appeal to the High Court within 28 days.

Yohan Liyanage
Resident Magistrate

06th December 2012