Tuiloma v The State [1990] FJHC 12; Haa0045j.89s (2 February 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 1989

Between:

ILIESA TUILOMA
Appellant

v.

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Seneratne for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

This appellant was convicted by the Suva Magistrate Court on the 10th June 1988 after he pleaded guilty to offences of House Breaking, Entering and Larceny and Larceny in a Dwelling House. In respect of these offences the appellant was given concurrent terms of 18 months imprisonment.

He has already served 13 months in prison and should have been discharged but for the fact that he escaped twice from prison. For his "escapes" he was given a further 6 months imprisonment.

It is also noteworthy that the offence of House Breaking, Entering and Larceny was committed 2 days after the appellant was released on bail in respect of another similar offence for which he had been brought before the court.

Furthermore the Magistrate Court record also reveals that after he was convicted on these present offences a Probation Officer's report was requested and the appellant was released by the Court and ordered to return on the 14th of June, 1988 with his father. He did not turn up at all and had to be produced on a bench warrant.

During the hearing of his appeal against sentence the appellant urged the fact that he is still young (D. of B.: 13.10.70) a first offender and offended because he associated with "bad company". He says he deeply regrets what he has done and promises never to involve himself in criminal activities again. He professes to a realisation that he lacks self-discipline and wishes to go to the family farm at Lomaivuna if he is released.

The Probation Officer's report however is not so optimistic of his future chances. It concludes with the following:

"Iliesa is over 17 years of age. He is not a popular member of the family because he is disobedient and unruly. While interviewing (him), he did not show any sign of remorse nor was he convincing that he will not re-offend."

Learned State counsel in opposing the appeal pointed to the apparent leniency of the learned magistrate in making the sentences in this case concurrent with those in another unrelated case.

I am prepared to give the appellant the chance he pleads for in the hope that he has truly realised the error of his past and I hereby order the appellant's release upon he and his father (as surety) entering into a good behaviour bond in the sum of $100 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months from the date of execution and on condition that he reside in Lomaivuna during the aforesaid 12 months and that he report twice daily at the Lomaivuna Police Post at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
2nd February, 1990.

HAA0045J.89S