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

Maile v State [2017] FJMC 34; Criminal Case 281.2017 (7 March 2017)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 281/2017

BETWEEN : TALEI MAILE

APPPLICANT

AND : THE STATE

RESPONDENT

For the Applicant:Ms.Ratu(LAC)

For the Respondent: Cpl Shaw

Date of Hearing: 06^th of March 2017

Date of Ruling : 07^th of March 2017

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant is charged with one count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
2. She was produced first time to this Court yesterday and I have transferred her matter to the High Court.
3. In the meantime the legal aid counsel who was appearing as duty solicitor has made an oral bail application, seeking bail for her client.
4. The respondent is objecting for bail on the grounds that this is Indictable offence and based on the strength of the prosecution case. The applicant has made admissions in her caution statement.
5. Having considered the respective submissions of the parties now I proceed to pronounce my ruling in this case.
6. Section 13(1) (h) of the 2013 Constitution states that a person who is arrested or detained has right to be released on reasonable terms and conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless the interests of justice otherwise require.
7. Therefore the applicant has the right to be granted bail unless the court is satisfied for the interest of the justice he needs to be detained.
   8. The substantive law about bail is in the Bail Act (“Act”) andSection 3(3) ofthatprovides that here is presumption of granting bail to an accused and the person who is opposing the bail has to rebut that.
9. The primary consideration in granting bail in a criminal case is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge(section 17(2) of the Act )
10. Section 19(1) of the 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
11. In IsimeliWakaniyasi v State ( 2010),FJHC 20;HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010), his Lordship Justice Goundar held that

"All three grounds need not exist to justify refusal of bail, existence of any one grounds is sufficient to refuse bail".

12. In this case the prosecution is objecting to the bail on two grounds.
13. First ground is Indicatable offence which indirectly means serious offence.
14. In my view just because the charge is serious alone is not a sufficient to deny bail to an accused. Article 14(2) (a) of the 2013 Constitution states that every person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
15. Hence without any other grounds based on this alone, I do not think the liberty of the applicant should be deprived.
16. But the applicant has made a confession in this case. So far the applicant or her counsel has not objected to that.
17. In a criminal trial confession is sufficient to convict an accused as long as the court is satisfied that it has been made voluntarily.
18. Even though the counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt that stage would be coming at the main trial. At a bail hearing I have to be concerned only about the strength of the prosecution case. And unchallenged confession is sufficient at this stage for me to decide that the prosecution has a strong case against the applicant.
19. Even though the applicant is a first offender ,with this strong evidence coupled with the penalty for this offence is sufficient for me to come to a finding that she would be unlikely to appear in court if granted bail.
20. Hence I refuse bail to the applicant and remand her further in this case.
21. 28 days to appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate