Public Prosecutor v Yao Guozhen

DECISION

1.    The applicant’s application for bail is refused and is dismissed.

2.     By application dated 22/05/2026 the applicant seeks to be released on bail on the conditions proposed.

3.    The grounds are that he has a right to bail, that as an investor he has businesses to run and look after, that he will surrender his passport and therefore is not a flight risk, that he should pay a bail bond.

4.    Prosecutions opposed the application submitting there is no good or special reason to grant bail, that the applicant is a flight risk as an investor, that he has three other business proprietors to run the business in his absence, that investigations are incomplete and that there is a risk of him interfering with the complainant and witnesses.

5.     Bail is a right but it is not an absolute right when the offence committed is one punishable by life imprisonment. Section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act provides that bail in this category of criminal offendings is subject to the discretion of the Supreme Court taking not account the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.     In this case the applicant faces two charges of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to sections 90/ 91 of the Penal Code Act. This offence carries life imprisonment.

7.    From the submissions by Prosecution, I heard that the victim or complainant was physically impaired at the time of the offending and that there is real likelihood of interfering with witnesses while investigation is still ongoing. Further that despite his passport being surrendered, as an investor, there is real risk of absconding the jurisdiction.

8.    I accept the submissions by Prosecutions. There is a flight risk and risk of interference with witnesses for the prosecution, in particular the victim.

9.    For those reasons the application is refused and dismissed. 

DATED at Port Vila this 27th day of May, 2026.
BY THE COURT

………………………
Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak