PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Magistrates Court of Fiji
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Magistrates Court of Fiji >> 2016 >> [2016] FJMC 149

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Naureure [2016] FJMC 149; Criminal Case 514.2015 (31 May 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
NAUSORI
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 514 of 2015


State


v.


Asesela Naureure
Navau Koro
Ilai Molidua


For State: PC Abinash
Accused : Present – Mr Chand (Legal Aid)


BAIL RULING


Introduction

This is an application for bail&by the accused. The aphe applicants are charged with a count each of aggravated burglary and theft.

Section 3(1) of the Bail Act provides thatccused has the right to be released on bai0;unlesunless it is not not in the interests of justice that ba60;should beted. stent wint with this principle, section 3(3) of the Act provides that there is a presupresumptiomption in favour of the granting of bail terson a person who opho opposes the granting of bail&#ail may se rebut the presumptiomption. In determining whether a presun is rebutted, the primary consideration in deciding whether to grant bail;is thes the likelihoodihood of the accused person appg in to answer the chhe chargesarges laid against him or her (section 17(2)).

Where bail is od, Se 18on 18(1) of th0f th0;Bail Actires thes that the partyparty opposing bail address the folg winee cons considerations:


(a) tkelihf thesed person surrendering to custody and and appeaappearing in court;

(b) the the interests of the accused person;

he public interesterest andt and the protection of the community.


Section 19(1) of the Bail Act provides thaa an ed perd person must be granted b160;by a court unless:

:


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

(b) the interests ests of thof the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail&#160

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

Section 19 (2) of the Act sets out a series of considera thatcourt must take into account in determining whethwhether orer 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;

(iv) the strength of the prosecution case;

<

(vii>(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 bailnditions;

(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

additiddition to thes 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 on thon the strength of the prosecution case and the seriousness of the offence which carries custodial sentence if the accused persons are found guilty. The prosecution is also concerned with the public interest and the protection of the community should the accused be granted bail and that they re-offend.

The submission for the accused persons are that they will comply with any bail conditions the Court might be imposed.

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 of aggravated burglary and theft. The charges against the applicants are indeed serious. The matter is now all set to proceed to hearing. The applicant have not submitted strong grounds that the court will consider as suitable for the grant of bail.

Having considered the applications, The Court is of the view that the applicants will not respect their bail conditions if granted bail. The Court is further satisfied that granting bail to the aants would endangeranger the public interest or make the protection of the community more difficult.

Bail is refused. The appls are aare advised that they have a right of appeal ag thission to the High High CourtCourt within 30 days.


Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
Na

31st/sup> May 2016

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2016/149.html