Mani v State [2015] FJCA 121; AAU0087.2013 (13 March 2015)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
[On Appeal from the High Court]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: AAU 0087 OF 2013
[High Court Case No: HAC 99/2010]

BETWEEN:

EPARAMA MANI
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram : Goundar JA
Counsel : Mr. R. Vananalagi for the Appellant
Mr. L. Fotofili for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 14 January 2015
Date of Ruling : 13 March 2015

RULING

[1] The appellant was tried and convicted in the High Court at Suva on one count each of aggravated robbery and causing grievous harm. On 2 April 2013, he was sentenced to a total term of 6 years' imprisonment with a non parole period of 5 years.

[2] On 9 September 2013, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal against conviction and sentence. The Notice was late by four months. After numerous adjournments, the appellant engaged counsel and abandoned his appeal against conviction. He now appeals against sentence on the following grounds:

The Learned Trial Judge erred in principle and also erred in exercising his sentencing discretion to the extent:

(a) That he took a high starting point of 8 years imprisonment;

(b) Adding 2 years as aggravating factors to the already high starting point.

[3] The grounds of appeal are devoid of any merit. The robbery victim was robbed inside his home at knife point. When a security officer tried to apprehend the appellant he stabbed him several times in his abdomen. The security officer was hospitalized and had to undergo a surgery.

[4] The tariff for aggravated robbery is 10 to 16 years (Kean v State unreported Cr. App. No. AAU95/08; 13 November 2013). The circumstances of this case clearly warranted a sentence of more than 10 years' imprisonment. The appellant had been in custody on remand for 2 years. The remand period was taken into account in sentence by the trial judge. Otherwise the appellant did not have any compelling mitigating factors. He had 25 previous convictions including robbery with violence.

[5] If the appellant is granted leave, he will run the risk of having his sentence enhanced by the Full Court.

Result

[6] Extension of time refused.

[7] Leave to appeal refused.

.....................................
Hon. Mr. Justice D. Goundar
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Solicitors:
Office of the Director, Legal Aid Commission for the Appellant
Office of the Director of the Public Prosecutions for the Respondent