IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
NAUSORI
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
Criminal Case No. 498 of 2015
684/2016

State

v.

Jona Robanakadavu

For State:    PC Abinash
Accused   :     Present – Mr N. Tuifagalele

BAIL RULING 

Introduction
This is an application for bail by the accused. The applicant is charged obtaining financial advantage by deception (498 of 2015)  and absconding bail (684 of 2016). Another file before this Court is that of Nausori Town Council and the accused (651/2015) where a committal warrant was issued.
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 in public interest the accused should be remanded in custody as he absconded bail and did not re-appear in court.   
The defence has sought that the accused be given a chance and that undertaking is given that he will attend Court. 
The Court has noted the law on Bail and the submissions by the applicant and the prosecution. The Court has already noted that the accused has made people run around. He does not voluntarily come to Court. In the Cases before the Court the Court had to subpoena the Divisional Police Commander Eastern and upon him being subpoenaed. The Court is advised that the Station Officer, Nausori located the accused and took him into custody. In the cases for the accused this Court has found that certain Court staff and police were not helpful and the accused was therefore not even arrested when bench warrants are issued in civil matters. This Court is concerned that Court staff and Police are behaving in such manner and letting someone known to them to be at large when cases are pending in Court. The accused must know that the laws of the land are to be followed and respected. The Court’s must be respected and if a date is given and bail is granted he/she must return to Court on the given dates. People like the accused who evade the legal system and make a mockery of it must be told that the judiciary will not tolerate such behaviour. It is the job of the judiciary to see that people who manipulate others and especially the Court Staff and the police to their advantage will not be dealt with lightly. In the cases for the accused this Court has found that the accused took advantage as the Court staff and the police showed laxity in arresting him. The public have complained that the accused was driving around in town and operated his taxi from the base almost opposite the Nausori Police Station.

The accused was in bail he did not come to Court after he was bailed and had been evading the Court. The accused is a flight risk and he has a number of cases pending before the Court and the likelihood is that he will not re-appear on the given dates. 
For the foregoing reasons bail is refused. Accused is remanded in custody. The applicant 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
7th October 2016