Sokosaya v The State [1991] FJHC 5; Haa0007.90s (11 January 1991)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 1990

Between:

SIMELI SOKOSAYA
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Hettige for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the Suva Magistrate Court on the 7th of June 1989 after he pleaded guilty to 76 offences laid against him by the police in 5 separate investigation dockets. The relevant Magistrate court files are numbered: 2458/88; 2459/88; 2544/88; 88/89 and Nausori Criminal file No. 845/88.

For the purposes of this appeal however this court is only aware of the 25 charges laid in Suva Cr. File No. 2544/88. The remaining files not having been produced.

Nevertheless all the files were dealt with together by the learned Chief Magistrate and the relevant sentences imposed in respect of all the 76 offences are clearly and comprehensively set out in a 3 page order enclosed in the appeal record.

The learned Chief Magistrate in sentencing the appellant clearly recognised that all the offences were committed during a 3 month 'crime spree' when the appellant was at large as a prison escapee.

The various sentences imposed on the appellant not only reflected the seriousness of the offences they also generally followed well-laid down sentencing principles applicable to concurrent as well as consecutive sentences.

To take but one illustration, the 60 "driving offences" charged were of 3 different types and in respect of each type a consecutive sentence of imprisonment was imposed but for each identical offence of the same type a concurrent sentence was imposed. Similarly with the Larceny and Breaking Offences.

The appellant appeals against the total sentence imposed on the ground that it is harsh and excessive and urges this court to make it concurrent with the 8 year sentence he was serving when he escaped. He however frankly admitted that such a course would have the undesirable effect of not penalising at all the 76 offences he committed whilst at large.

This cannot be just or fair to those prisoners who faithfully and diligently serve their sentences without escaping or re-offending. Indeed this court would go further and say that to adopt the course urged by the appellant would make a 'mockery of the law' and provide a "charter" for prison-escapees to commit offences whilst unlawfully at large. That would be intolerable.

Everyone including prisoners must understand that if they break the law they will be punished. This is a lesson that must especially be learnt by recidivists and persistent offenders such as the appellant who must be made to understand that their future destiny lies within their hands to control.

Having said that however this court cannot fail to notice that the 5 Breaking offences in which a total of almost $3,000 worth of goods were stolen, accounted for 4 of the total 6 1/2 years imprisonment imposed.

That sentence is not only disproportionate to the amount involved and the total sentence as a composite reflection of the appellant's criminal activities during the 3 month period but moreso to the 6 Larceny offences and an offence of Breaking with Intent for which the appellant only received a total effective sentence of 6 months imprisonment. Furthermore they have somewhat inconsistently been made consecutive.

Accordingly the sentences for the 3 counts of School Breaking, Entering and Larceny and for the 2 counts of Housing Breaking, Entering and Larceny are hereby ordered to be served concurrently.

The effect of the above order is that the appellant's aggregate sentence for these 5 criminal case files is reduced by 2 years to 4 1/2 years imprisonment to be served consecutive to the sentence that the appellant was serving on the 7th of June 1989.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
11th January, 1991.

HAA0007.90S