Cueuma v The State [1990] FJHC 27; Haa0119j.89s (21 February 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 1989

Between:

SAVENACA CUEUMA
Appellant

v.

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. R. Perera for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant pleaded guilty before the Nausori Magistrate Court to 8 counts of Burglary, House Breaking, Entering and Larceny and Robbery with Violence and was sentenced to a total of 3 years 3 months imprisonment.

The appellant appeals against what he says is the harshness of the total sentence and urges his family's hardship in support of his appeal.

In each of the 7 breaking offences, the appellant is alleged to have broken into the houses whilst the occupants were away and stolen cash, kitchen knives and utensils, gold jewellery, items of clothing and electrical goods worth about $700 in toto. In so far as the robbery count is concerned the appellant admitted robbing the victim of a wrist watch and $20 cash.

The offences were committed over a period of 2 months (between 17th June and 6th August, 1988) and in 3 instances, 3 houses in the same area were broken into in 1 day. This can only be described as a 'criminal escapade' on the part of the appellant reflecting a complete disregard for other people's homes and possessions.

To his credit the appellant pleaded guilty and it appears that $400 worth of items were recovered together with a kitchen knife and a pot. The robbery victim's watch was also recovered.

The appellant is not yet 21 years of age and has 2 previous convictions for Robbery with Violence in 1987 for which he received a prison sentence. He is married and h is wife has recently given birth to their first-born. The appellant has already served 17 months of his sentence and he now professes to have learnt his lesson. He asks for mercy so that he can be released to care for his parents, wife and son and a younger brother who is attending secondary school.

In sentencing the appellant the learned trial magistrate merely imposed the following prison terms:

Count 1 - 15 months imprisonment

" 2 - 6 months concurrent

" 3 - 6 " "

" 4 - 6 " "

" 5 - 6 months concurrent

" 6 - 12 " consecutive

" 7 - 12 " "

" 8 - 12 " concurrent

In the absence of any explanation it is difficult to discern any pattern or logic in the sentences passed. For instance, the sentences are not made concurrent or consecutive according to the months in which they were committed nor have the offences been treated as forming one criminal transaction. Furthermore the length of the particular sentences do not appear to have been related to the value of the stolen items.

In short these sentences offend numerous sentencing principles and cannot be allowed to remain undisturbed and they are accordingly quashed and in substitution I impose the following:

On Count 1 - 12 months imprisonment

" " 2 - 9 " "

" " 3 - 9 " "

" " 4 - 12 " "

" " 5 - 9 " "

" " 6 - 9 " "

" " 7 - 9 " "

All above sentences are ordered to be served concurrently making an effective sentence of 12 months imprisonment; and On Count 8 the robbery offence I impose a consecutive sentence of 15 months imprisonment making a total sentence of (12 + 15) = 27 months imprisonment with effect from the 22nd of September, 1988.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
21st February, 1990.

HAA0119J.89S