PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Court of Appeal of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Court of Appeal of Fiji >> 2013 >> [2013] FJCA 3

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Savou v State [2013] FJCA 3; AAU0065.2010 (25 January 2013)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIJI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.AAU0065 OF 2010
[High Court Criminal Action No. HAC 53 of 2010L]


BETWEEN:


JONE SAVOU
Appellant


AND:


THE STATE
Respondent


Coram : Chandra RJA
Counsel : Appellant in Person
Mr. S.Vodokisolomone for the Respondent


Date of Hearing : 6 December 2012
Date of Ruling : 25 January 2013


RULING


  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that it is harsh and excessive.
  2. The Appellant was charged for the count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree No.44 of 2009 in HAC 053 of 2010L.
  3. The Appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced on 11th August 2010 to 9 years imprisonment without parole for the first seven years of the sentence.
  4. The grounds urged by the Appellant in appealing against his sentence are that the sentence was harsh and excessive, that his plea of guilty in the first instance was not accounted for, that his mitigating factors were not taken into account.
  5. The learned trial Judge had considered the tariff in respect of the offence of aggravated robbery as 10 to 14 years imprisonment having considered the decisions in Sakiusa Basa v. The State [2006] FJCA 23 and Semisi Wainiqolo v. The State [2006] FJCA 70 and chose 12 years as a starting point which is within the sentencing tariff.
  6. Since the commission of the offence involved the use of violence 3 years were added for the aggravated features but reduced 6 years for the Appellant's strong mitigation.
  7. The setting of the non parole period of 7 years by the trial Judge was on the basis that the offence committed was of a serious nature as the Appellant was a member of a masked and armed gang which committed the offence.
  8. The learned trial Judge has considered all the mitigating factors put forth by the Appellant and given them adequate consideration in imposing the sentence.
  9. In the above circumstances the application of the Appellant for leave against sentence is refused in terms of Section 35(3) of the Court of Appeal Act & Rules (Cap.12).

Order of Court


The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.


Suresh Chandra
Resident Justice of Appeal


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJCA/2013/3.html