Seruvatu v The State [1996] FJHC 13; Haa0006j.96s (16 May 1996)

Fiji Islands - Seruvatu v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 0006 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

SERUVATU
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Karavaki for Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On the 11th of August 1995 the appellant was convicted by the Nausori Magistrate Courtafter he pleaded guilty to y to an offence of Burglary in which he was alleged to have stolen items valued at $2,000. Upon his conviction the appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

He has aed against the hars harshne the sentence on various grounds including, the failure of e of the trial magistrate to give him the opportunity to mitigate before sce; in failing to take into account of his guilty plea and, and, the assistance rendered by him in the recovery of all the stolen items.

On 29th March 1996 the appeal was heard and this Court orally dismissed it for reasons to be provided which I now do so.

At the hearing of the appeal the appellant who was unrepresented, sought a reduction in his sentence to allow for his immediate release. He professed to have learnt his lesson and discovered the Lord and promised not to re-offend if he was released. He sought a suspended sentence of the remainder of his sentence of which he had already served 8 months by the time the appeal was heard.

In Cr. App. 85 of 1992 in which the appellant appealed against a sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed for an offence of Burglary, Jesuratnam J. in refusing a similar request by the appellant said that such an exercise was 'futile'. He did however reduce the sentence to 9 months imprisonment because the appellant was then a first offender of 21 years of age.

p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Since then, the appellant's record of previous convictions indicates that s re-offended 3 times more,more, and although they were offences of dishonesty, the Suva Magistrate Court extended to the appellant the relative leniency of non-custodial sentences, the last of which, was a 'binding-over' for a period of 12 months imposed on 12 August 1994.

Almost a year to the day and in breach of the 'binding- over' ordee appellant committed the pthe present offence. He has clearly learnt little from his past imprisonment or the Court's previous leniency towards him.

In Smith and Woolard (1978) 67 Cr. App. R. 211 the Court of Appeal ) in upholding a borstaorstal training sentence on an 18 year old youth with prior convictions for dishonesty, said in words with which I entirely agree, at p.212:

"... burglary in the form of housebreaking is a us crime indeed. The publicublic are entitled to be protected against burglars. In the opinion of this Court they are not likely to be protected if lenient sentences are passed. ... Adolescents have got to be discouraged from housebreaking and, in our judgments, they are not likely to be discouraged by sentences which do not involve loss of liberty."

The appeal was accordingsmissed as being wholly unmeritorious.

D.V. Fatiaki
JUDGE

At Suva,
16th May, 1996.

Haa0006j.96s