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

State v Charan [2016] FJMC 142; Criminal Case 338.2016 (11 May 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
NAUSORI
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 338 of 2016

State

v.

Rakesh Charan

For State: Mr Y Prasad and Ms Serukai
Accused : Present – Mr S. Kumar

BAIL RULING

Introduction

This is an application for bail by the accused. The applicant is charged with a count of found in possession of illicit drug.

Section 3(1) of the Bail Act provides that an accused has the right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interests of justice that bail should be granted. Consistent with this principle, section 3(3) of the Act provides that there is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to a person, but a person who opposes the granting of bail may seek to rebut the presumption. In determining whether a presumption is rebutted, the primary consideration 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 (section 17(2)).

Where bail is opposed, Section 18(1) of the Bail Act requires that the party opposing bail address the following three considerations:

(a) the likelihood of the accused person surrendering to custody and appearing in court;

(b) the interests of the accused person;

(c) the public interest and the protection of the community.

Section 19(1) of the Bail Act provides that an accused person must be granted bail by a court unless:

(a) the accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;

(b) the interests of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail ; or

(c) granting bail to the accused person would endanger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.

Section 19 (2) of the Act sets out a series of considerations that the court must take into account in determining whether or not any of the three matters mentioned in section 19 (1) are established. These matters are:

(a) as regards the likelihood of surrender to custody –

(i) the accused person’s background and community ties (including residence, employment, family situation, previous criminal history);

(ii) any previous failure by the person to surrender to custody or to observe bail conditions;

(iii) the circumstances, nature and seriousness of the offence;

(iv) the strength of the prosecution case;

(v) the severity of the likely penalty if the person is found guilty;

(vi) any specific indications (such as that the person voluntarily surrendered to the police at the time of arrest, or, as a contrary indication, was arrested trying to flee the country);
(b) as regards the interests of the accused person –

(i) the length of time the person is likely to have to remain in custody before the case is heard;

(ii) the conditions of that custody;

(iii) the need for the person to obtain legal advice and to prepare a defence;

(iv) the need for the person to beat liberty for other lawful purposes (such as employment, education, care of dependants);

(v) whether the person is under the age of 18 years (in which case section 3(5) applies);

(vi) whether the person is incapacitated by injury or intoxication or otherwise in danger or in need of physical protection;
(c) as regards the public interest and the protection of the community –

(i) any previous failure by the accused person to surrender to custody or to observe bail conditions;

(ii) the likelihood of the person interfering with evidence, witnesses or assessors or any specially affected person;

(iii) the likelihood of the accused person committing an arrestable offence while on bail .

In addition to these matters, the court must also bear in mind the presumption of innocence. Which is that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Court.

In this application the State opposes bail. The prosecution in this case has informed the court that the accused has other pending cases in which he is charged for similar offences. One is in the High Court-HAC 196/14 and other in the Magistrate’s Court (1688/14). They argue that one of the conditions of bail is that a person must not re-offend. In this case he has re-offended and therefore should be remanded in custody. While this Court notes that a person be separately charged for breach of bail, the Court must consider any breach of bail conditions in determining future bails.

The defence has apart from agreeing to curfew, giving fixed address agreed to provide cash bail sum of $1000.The Counsel for the applicant told the Court that two persons are sureties for the applicant. The Court noted the details of these sureties. Having questioned the sureties the Court is not satisfied that they are suitable sureties as they hold no influence or control over the accused to see that he appears in Court.

The Court has noted the law on Bail and the submissions by the applicant and the prosecution. The Court has also noted the maximum sentence for the offence. Having considered the application, The Court is of the view that the applicant will not respect his bail conditions if granted bail. The Court is further satisfied that granting bail to the applicant is not in the public interest.

Bail is refused. The applicant will be appearing in the High Court and can have bail reviewed and is also advised that he has a right of appeal against this decision to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
Nausori

11^th May 2016