[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2008 >> [2008] FJHC 253

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

State v Turagakula [2008] FJHC 253; Criminal Case 107.2007 (13 October 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 107 of 2007

STATE

v

ISEI TURAGAKULA

Date of Hearing : 13th October 2008
Date of Ruling : 13th October 2008

Mr. L. Sovau for the State
Accused no appearance

RULING

The Accused is charged with the following offences:

Count 1

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to section 293 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

ISEI TURAGAKULA with others on the 26th day of May, 2007 at Lautoka in the Western Division robbed RONIL RITESH PRASAD s/o CHANDRIKA PRASAD of cash $1,832.06, cigarettes valued $226.89, phone cards valued $1,862.25, confectioneries valued $95.04 all to the total value of $4,016.24 and at the time of such robbery did use personal violence on the said RONIL RITESH PRASAD s/o CHANDRIKA PRASAD.

Count 2

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to section 293 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

ISEI TURAGAKULA with others on the 26th day of May, 2007 at Lautoka in the Western Division robbed RAMIZZA BEGUM d/o MOHAMMED HAROON of cash $1,170.00, two packets of cigarettes valued $5.00, to the total value of $1,175.00 and at the time of such robbery did use personal violence on the said RAMIZZA BEGUM d/o MOHAMMED HAROON.

Count 3

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to section 293 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

ISEI TURAGAKULA with others on the 26th day of May 2007 at Lautoka in the Western Division robbed RONALD SAMI s/o PERMAL SAMI of cash $2,427.00, recharge cards valued $5,750.00, sweets valued $80.00, cigarettes valued $800.00 to the total value of $9,057.00 and at the time of such robbery did use personal violence on the said RONALD SAMI s/o PERMAL SAMI.

The Accused has other charges pending before the Magistrates’ Court at Nadi, Lautoka and Ba.

On 23 June 2008, this case was set for trial but the Accused who was on bail failed to appear for the hearing.

On 14 July 2008, the Accused was arrested and remanded in custody by my brother Govind J.

On 23 July 2008, the Accused escaped from the lawful custody of the State and failed to appear in Court.

On 3 September 2008, the Accused was apprehended and my sister Shameem J refused bail.

The Accused then applied for bail pending trial in writing and the application was set for hearing today. When the case was called in Court, the Accused failed to appear. The case was stood down to make enquiries about the whereabouts of the Accused.

Enquiries made by the Counsel for the State revealed that the Accused was released on bail by the Nadi Magistrates’ Court on 9 October 2008.

The circumstances of release are not known at this stage but the decision to grant bail to the Accused raises some concerns about the administration of justice.

The Accused is charged with very serious offences alleging use of violence. He previously breached bail conditions and had escaped from the lawful custody of the State. He was refused bail by this Court.

Despite the order of this Court not to release the Accused, the Magistrates’ Court granted him bail. This indicates serious flaws in the system which an Accused could use to his advantage if the prosecutor is not diligent.

Was the prosecutor in the Nadi matter not aware of the Lautoka case in which the High Court had refused bail to the Accused?

Was the Learned Magistrate informed of the High Court’s decision by the prosecutor?

Why did the police release the Accused when the order of this Court was to remand him in custody?

The Court needs answers to these questions. As I have said the conduct of the prosecution and or the police in this case in releasing the Accused when the order of this Court was to remand him in custody raises some serious concerns about the conduct of the prosecution and or the police that may bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This, the Court will not allow.

I order the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to conduct a full enquiry into this matter and file a report in Court before 25 October 2008.

A bench warrant is issued against the Accused returnable on 27 October 2008.

SO ORDERED.

Daniel Goundar
Judge

At Lautoka
13th October 2008.