State v Tikoisuva [1993] FJHC 113; HAC0030t.1993s (1 December 1993)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 30 OF 1993

THE STATE

- and -

1. TANASIO TIKOISUVA
2. TOMASI QORONIASI
3. SAIRUSI SENILAWALAWA

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to Section 293(1) of the Penal Code Cap. 17

Mr. D. Tuiqereqere for the State
All Accused present in person

SENTENCE

Each of the accused persons has been convicted on his plea of "guilty" to an offence of Robbery with Violence. This is an offence for which our law provides a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with or without corporal punishment. It is clearly considered a very serious offence.

The facts outlined by the prosecution and admitted by the accused persons in court and to the police tells of how over drinks at the Garrick Hotel the 3 accused planned to rob the Lions Supermarket on Grantham Road, Raiwaqa. To ensure a speedy getaway from the scene they unlawfully removed a private car parked in the C.W.M. Hospital carpark which the 2nd accused drove away.

Later they went to Lions Supermarket where the 3rd accused with his face partly covered forcibly removed the cash-till. The owner of the Supermarket on seeing this intervened and he was struck twice on the hand and once in the stomach area by the 1st accused using a sharp object.

The supermarket owner sustained a deep cut to the palm of his hand and a cut finger. He also had a cut on his abdomen.

The 3 accused then made a hurried departure in the stolen car that was stopped outside the supermarket and driven by the 2nd accused. They abandoned the car in Laucala Beach Estate and returned to the 2nd accused house where they shared the money removed from the cash-till and went dancing at the Southern Cross Hotel.

It is purely fortuitous that the supermarket owner was not more seriously injured considering the fact that the first accused had gone into the shop armed with a knife and had used it so as to enable the 3rd accused to escape with the cash-till.

This Court notes with increasing concern the growing number of similar armed robberies of shops, service stations and supermarkets particularly with the approaching festive season.

Shopkeepers and operators of supermarkets carrying on their legitimate business and providing a public service are often open to quite late hours of the night. They must be protected from people who would seek to deprive them of the "fruits" of their hard work and moreso where physical violence is used to cause injury to them.

To the accused credit they freely admitted the offence to the police when interviewed and they have pleaded 'guilty' in this court but although the offence is a relatively old one no account can be taken of the long delay which has been due in large measure to the accused themselves.

I accept that each of the accused had different roles in the commission of the offence - the 1st accused used the knife, the 2nd accused drove the car and the 3rd accused removed the cash-till, but this was a jointly planned robbery which included the carrying of a lethal weapon and its use was well within the contemplation of all 3 accused. They are all equally responsible for the offence as confirmed by their own equal sharing of the stolen money.

All 3 accused have a criminal record which includes similar offences to that with which they have been convicted. The 1st accused has 4 previous convictions for Robbery with Violence, the 2nd accused 1, and the 3rd accused 8.

I have considered all that has been urged upon me by each of the accused persons but I cannot see how anything other than an immediate custodial sentence would meet the justice of this case.

In all the circumstances the sentence of the court must be a deterrent one. Each of the accused persons is accordingly sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. In the case of the 3rd accused this sentence is ordered to be served CONSECUTIVE to any other sentence he may now be serving.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
1st December, 1993.

HAC0030T.93S