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

State v Saisaidugu [2015] FJMC 133; Criminal Case 517.2015 (16 October 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 517 of 2015

STATE

V

ILIESA SAISAIDUGU

Prosecution : PC Monish. M
Accused : Mr Fesaitu

Ruling : 16 October 2015

RULING ON BAIL

1. This is the court written reasons on why the accused bail application was refused on 12 October 2015.
   
2. The Accused on 30 September 2015, submit his bail application under CPD Form No. BA1.
   
3. The Applicant is charged with one count of Burglary, contrary to section 312 of the Crimes Decree and one count of Theft contrary to section 291 of the Crimes Decree. The particulars of the offence are that on the 28th day of August 2015, at Tuatua, Labasa, in the Northern Division entered into the property of Ana Biausavu with intent to steal therein AND stole 1 HP tablet valued $1000.00, 2 t-shirt valued $20.00, 2 pompom valued $10.00 and 1 wallet valued at $10.00 to the total value of $1,040.00 the property of Ana Biausavu.
   
4. The reasons or grounds for the accused bail applications are as follows, the Accused;-
   
   1. Had planted 500 yaqona and 1000 dalo and need to be maintained;
      
   2. Parents are old, father (68 years), mother (58 years) as it's hard for them to care and maintain yaqona and dalo and looking after the welfare and education of his younger brother who is Form 5 at Holy Family as his six brothers and four sisters are all married;
      
   3. Is 18 years old and three weeks in prison has taught him a great lesson; and
      
   4. Release on bail will ease the burden on his parents.
      
5. On 12 October 2015, Prosecution objected and opposed bail application and orally submit the following grounds:
   
   1. Accused had two pending cases, CF 415/14 for Theft and CF 421/15 for Burglary and Theft.
      
   2. While on bail on the two pending cases, accused committed this offence of Burglary and Theft.
      
   3. Bail conditions for the two pending cases are for the accused not to re-offend while on bail.
      
   4. Accused to be further remanded as he has breach his bail conditions.
      
   5. Refer to section 19(2)(c)(i) and (iii) of the Bail Act.
      
   6. It is in the best interest of the public for the accused to be remanded.
      
   7. Had four previous convictions, two for Burglary and two for Theft.
      
   8. Bail application form is misleading the court. Paragraph 5 where accused fail to declare and disclose his two pending cases.
      
6. The Accused confirmed the submission made by the Prosecution and submit that he does not want to stay in prison.
   
7. The presumption of bail under section 3(3) of the Bail Act 2002, is subject to section 3(1) of the same Act.
   
8. Section 18(1) of the Bail Act provides the criteria that should be considered in application like this one and they are;-
   
   1. The likelihood of the accused person appearing in court to answer to the charge laid against him;
      

ii. The interest of the accused person; and

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

9. On the first criteria, the Applicant is charged with a serious offence and no adverse record of not attending court case has been tendered.
   
10. On the second criteria, it was determined in Umesh Chand v State (unreported) Criminal Misc Case No. HAM 91 of 2015, that the difficulty faced by the family is not a valid ground for bail consideration and the fact that the Applicant is represented by a legal counsel guarantees a fair trial despite the detention. The grounds advanced by the Applicant under this criteria will fail.
    
11. On the third criteria, it was also determined in Umesh Chand v State (supra) that history of violating bail conditions and refusal of bail on the interest of justice is a valid ground for consideration in rejecting bail. In this case it is in the public interest and for the protection of the community that bail not to be granted. The Accused has two previous convictions on the same offences. I recalled that I had sentence the Accused few weeks ago on the same offence of Burglary and Theft and that should increase his previous conviction to three for both Burglary and Theft. This is the fourth case of Burglary and Theft and there is a pending case of Theft within a time frame of four years. The Accused also breach his bail conditions for the two pending case when this charge was filed.
    
12. I find that none of the grounds advanced by the Applicant warrants the granting of the bail application. The presumption of bail is displaced on the interest of justice for the protection of community and the public at large and his failure to comply with his bail conditions.
    
13. I find that the presumption of bail in favour of the Applicant is displaced and accordingly I refuse the Applicant bail application.
    
14. The above are reasons on why I refused the Accused bail on 12 October 2015 and further remanded the Accused in custody.
    

Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE