SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF BAIL
IN THE FIRST MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SUVA CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Criminal Case No. 1377 of 2025
IN THE MATTER of an application by the Applicant pursuant to Section 3 and 30 of the Bail Act 2002
BETWEEN:
VARINAVA SABUA APPLICANT
AND:
THE STATE RESPONDENT
SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF BAIL
I. BACKGROUND
Charge Date and Nature of Charges
The Applicant, Varinava Sabua, was charged on 24th September 2025.
Charges included:
One Count of Abuse of Office contrary to Section 139 of the Crimes Act 2009.
One Count of Receiving a Corrupt Benefit contrary to Section 137(1)(a)(ii) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Bail Application Timeline
25th September 2025: First call where bail was denied; ruling delivered on 26th September 2025.
The Honourable Court directed counsel to file a formal bail application for review, allowing recalling within seven days.
Subsequent Applications for Review
Applications to review the bail ruling made on 14th October 2025 and 5th November 2025 were both denied.
Engaged new Counsel (Lal Patel Bale Lawyers) mid-November, leading to a fresh review filed and dated 21st November 2025.
Matter called on 24th November 2025 with the court setting various procedural deadlines for responses and filings leading up to a bail hearing on 10th December 2025.
Bail Ruling and Procedure Delays
On 10th December 2025, determined that the DPP filed their Affidavit late on 3rd December 2025, resulting in procedural delays.
Court directed that the DPP’s Affidavit in Opposition be released from the Court Registry and served on Counsel for the Applicant.
Required that submissions on bail be filed by 11th December 2025.
Purpose of Submissions
These submissions aim to assist the Honourable Court concerning the Applicant’s bail application and respond to the DPP’s opposition.
II. RELEVANT LAW APPLICATION
Bail Act 2002 Overview
The Bail Act 2002 empowers the Magistrate and the Magistrates Court to hear and determine applications for bail, particularly via Sections 12 to 14, and the review of decisions under Section 30.
Presumption of Bail
Section 3 of the Bail Act 2002 states that:
Every accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interests of justice.
Bail may be granted by a court or a police officer under certain conditions.
There is a presumption in favour of granting bail unless rebutted.
The presumption may be displaced under specific circumstances, such as prior breach of conditions or charges of serious offences, including domestic violence.
Application to the Applicant
Section 3(5) does not apply as the Applicant is above 18 years and has not previously breached bail conditions, nor have they been convicted of any offence, including domestic violence.
Court’s Consideration When Determining Bail
As per Section 17 of the Bail Act 2002:
Time likely spent in custody if bail is denied.
Primary consideration is the likelihood of appearing in court to answer charges.
Expected Duration of Proceedings
Cases are expected to take 12 to 24 months, with potential delays extending the period to up to 5 years in some instances. The Applicant has been remanded since 22nd September 2025.
Prosecution’s Burden
The prosecution has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the Applicant will not appear in court. The Applicant proposes strict bail conditions, including:
Recognizance bail with $2000 bond.
Two surety bonds each of $1000.
Weekly reporting to the Police and restrictions on interference with witnesses.
Arguments for Granting Bail
The Applicant’s only means of residing is in Fiji, which mitigates flight risk. Rebuttal against the allegations raised by the prosecution concerning public interest and safety has been inadequate.
The proposed bail conditions meet reasonable safeguards for the community’s protection.
A. Specific Provisions Under the Bail Act 2002
Criteria for Refusal of Bail
Section 18 of the Bail Act 2002 lays out criteria where bail may be opposed:
Likelihood of the accused surrendering to custody and appearing in court.
Interests of the accused person.
Public interest and community protection must be considered.
Review of Opposing Submissions
The prosecution has stated public interest concerns, relying on the severity and nature of the allegations, which have been critically examined against the rebuttal of likelihood of personal liberty being unduly curtailed.
The principles established in cases such as Leone v State affirm caution in limiting bail based solely on pending charges.
B. Challenges in Prosecution's Opposition to Bail
Inadequate Grounds for Bail Opposition
The prosecution’s argument fails to adequately substantiate interference claims or public interest assertions, relying heavily on status and prior suspicions.
Prior suspicions and pending cases do not alone justify continued remand without evidence.
Court's Previous Rulings as Precedent
Notable cases underline the applicant's presumption of innocence and appropriate conditions supportive of both the personal liberties of the accused and the judicial process.
III. CONCLUSION
Final Position on Bail
Given the analysis of both parties’ submissions alongside the existing legal provisions under the Bail Act and related jurisprudence, no compelling reasons exist to oppose granting bail to the Applicant, Varinava Sabua.
Call for Review of Prior Ruling
The initial ruling provided on 26th September 2025 should be rescinded and bail granted.