Posted by jak Bail refusal in the Magistrate Court and High Court is publicly welcomed and lawful. Denial of bail does not negate the presumption of innocence under the Constitution (S.10 (11) (a) by implication. High Court has discretion to vary bail or reduce bail (S.106 (3) of CPC). That same discretionary power to vary bail extends to include power to field/stop bail (Justice Brown in the High Court recently). He took this view based on an English Act of Parliament applicable in SI by virtue of Schedule III, of the Constitution. Starting point - High Court has discretion to grant bail or refuse bail. Circumstances will determine exercise of discretion. Nee case public interest was factored heavily as a reason for refusal of bail. Public is interested to see Parliament meet in peace and Nee is accused of a crime that goes something like (“daenamaetim Parliament ia”). Second factor is witnesses have actually been threatened by Nee. Third a man of influence like Nee can interfere with witnesses indirectly using other people, as a way to evade strict bail conditions, hard to detect easily. Therefore in those circumstances, refuse bail was a proper exercise of discretion. I agree on all three reasons by Justice Brown. I do not think conditions will work when you consider the situation of recent past. So-called 2 ministers actually went to Magistrate court under the pretext of special privilege (Ministers of the crown, so should release them to work their duties). Implied from their counsel’s submission for bail based on change in circumstance (NOW MINISTERS & ALSO SICK BIG TUMAS LO SUGAR). So all in all refuse bail was justified in the circumstance and is lawful. I agree with this exercise of discretion, in the prevailing circumstances. Others: These two should not become Ministers at all. Leave aside Sogavare’s reasons on presumed innocent, so can still be Ministers. I respect that position in law and our legal system. However what I am worried about is the negative perception that very action will have on GOVT. People will see PM as not doing the right thing. Not right for a man accused of a crime and INVESTIGATED BY POLICE to be boss of the police again. Conflict of interest and police officers will feel intimidated to investigate their BOSS. People will simply say PM is corrupt. Not a good start image for GOVT. Gives out a wrong early signal. Undermine integrity of GOVT; especially where people see KEMAKEZA’s action in the last GOVT was to remove MINISTERS Charged with crimes, as a good governance measure. Australia and NZ have already shouted. Locally people see that action as a bad starting point for Sogavare. Absurd to appoint someone in custody becos you already know come Monday morning they will not be in office to do work. I called it HEHEOHA or PIUHA, in spite of whatever good political reasons there may be. I am worried about public negative perception of the govt. GOVT has 28; so better appoint those other backbenchers. I am praying for the two to be convicted and jailed for more than six months. Silly prayer point for some. Mao waikoeha ke nena hoe. Waikoeha wara AREKA.
on 12/5/2006, 11:03 am, in reply to "2 Ministers Bail"
202.1.164.210
2 Ministers bail
Message Thread:
« Back to thread