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

Benedito v State [2013] FJMC 359; Criminal Case 345.2012 (8 October 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 345/2012

BETWEEN:

IOWANE BENEDITO and SANILA TABUAVULA
APPPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

01st Applicant in person
Mr. Festion from the Legal Aid for the 2nd Applicant.
Mr. Kumar for the Respondent
Date of Ruling : 08th October 2013

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicants with another are charged in this Court for the following offences.
   
   1. Two counts of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree
      
   2. One count of Driving motor vehicle contrary to section 56(3) (a) and 56(6) of the Land Transport Act.
      
   100. One count of Escaping from Lawful Custody contrary to section 196 of the Crimes Decree.
        
2. The applicants are in remand custody and filed their bail applications in this court.
   
3. The reasons for bail for the both applicants are as follows.
   
   1. The evidence is weak.
   2. This case has been pending from 2012
      
4. The State objected to both these applications and has filed affidavit from Inspector Litea Toka setting down their objections.
   
5. Section 03 of the Bail Act of 2002 provides that the accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted. The presumption of granting bail to a person could be rebutted by the party who oppose to it and in this case the State has to rebut that.
   
6. Section 17(2) of the Act stipulates that the primary consideration in granting bail is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge.
   
7. Section 19(1) of the Bail Act outlines the reasons for refusing bail and they are as follows:-
   
   1. The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;
      
   2. The interest of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or
      
   100. Granting bail to the accused would endanger the public interest or make protection of the community more difficult
        
8. In Isimeli Wakaniyasi v State ( 2010),FJHC 20;HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010), His Lordship Justice Gounder held that "All three grounds need not exist to justify refusal of bail, existence of any one grounds is sufficient to refuse bail".
   
9. I have considered the bail applications and the objections filed by the State. Both applicants are charged with serious offences. The State is relying on the confessions and the identification evidence in this case against both applicants. Also the 2nd applicant had escaped from the Suva correction center in the month of November 2012 and was arrested later.
10. Also even though this has been pending from 2012 this Court can give an early hearing date for this case in 2014. And whatever the time the both applicants spend in custody will be deducted if found guilty by this Court.
    
11. Based on the reasons above, I am not satisfied that the applicants may surrender to custody and appear in court to the charges laid against them if granted bail. Also no interest of the applicants will be served by granting bail. Therefore I refuse granting bail to both applicants.
    
12. 28 days to appeal
    

08th October 2013

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate