Taletawa v The State [1990] FJHC 22; Haa0110j.89s (16 February 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 110 OF 1989 & 16 OF 1990

Between:

VUATE TALETAWA
Appellant

v.

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. R. Perera for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the Suva Magistrate Court and sentenced on the 4th of April 1989 to a total of 51 months imprisonment made up as follows:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 1571/88

Robbery with Violence in which the appellant was sentenced on the 2nd of August 1988 to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years and fined $80 in default 3 months imprisonment.

(2) Criminal Case No. 553/89

Count 1: Bulk Store Breaking, Entering and Larceny - 12 months imprisonment.

Count 2: Burglary and Larceny in a Dwelling House - 12 months imprisonment consecutive to Count 1.

Count 3: Robbery with Violence - 15 months imprisonment consecutive to sentence passed in Counts 1 and 2.

The learned trial magistrate also activated in full the suspended sentence imposed in Criminal Case No. 1571/88. The appellant was thus required to serve a total sentence of (12 + 12 + 15 + 12) = 51 months imprisonment.

The appellant now appeals against the total sentence on the ground of its harshness having regard to his relative youth and this being only his second occasion in prison. The first being for 3 months for his failure to pay the fine of $80 imposed in Criminal Case No. 1571/88.

The offences in the two files were committed on different dates between December 1987 and March 1989. The breaking offences involved a bulkstore and a private residence in which almost $4,000 worth of items were stolen. The Robbery offences on the other hand involved small sums but were marked by violence causing very serious eye injuries in one instance. They were also committed within 7 months of each other.

I have considered whether the sentences are individually harsh or excessive and cannot agree that they are in any way, nor can their being made consecutive be faulted.

The appellant clearly deserves a custodial sentence however he is a young man and this is his first time in prison for any significant length. He has already served 10 months in prison. He says he is having a very hard time and adds that these offences were committed when he had run-away from his parents and was living and associating with "bad company".

Having carefully considered the totality of the sentences imposed on the appellant it would appear that the learned trial magistrate had failed to take "one last look at it" in order to satisfy himself that the totality of the sentences imposed properly reflected the appellant's criminal behaviour.

A sentence of 51 months on a 20 year old which will permit his release no earlier than 1992 when he will have turned 23 years is a harsh sentence with little room for hope or rehabilitation. I am willing to be lenient to the appellant in the hope that he will repay the court's leniency by staying out of trouble when he is eventually released from prison.

The sentences of the appellant are quashed and in substitution thereof I impose the following:

In Criminal Case No. 1571/88 a sentence of 12 months imprisonment; and in Criminal Case No. 553/89 the following consecutive sentences:

On Count 1: A sentence of 7 months imprisonment;

On Count 2: A sentence of 5 months imprisonment; and

On Count 3: 12 months imprisonment

making a total of (12 + 7 + 5 + 12) = 36 months imprisonment. All sentences are ordered to run from the 4th of April 1989.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
16th February, 1990.

HAA0110J.89S