Prasad v The State [1996] FJHC 20; Haa0004j.1995b (22 May 1996)

Fiji Islands - Sharda Prasad v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LABASA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 0004 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

SHARDA PRASAD
s/o Mathura Prasad
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. L. Laveti for Respondent

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against a sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant in the Labasa Magistrate Court after he pleaded guilty to an offence of House Breaking Entering and Larceny.

The brief facts of the case were that on the day in question the appellant whilst passing the complainant's house notice it was unoccupied. He removed two louvre blades and gained entry into the house where he helped himself to some food and stole cash and jewellery to the total value of $490. Nothing has been recovered.

The appellant's grounds of appeal are that the sentence is harsh and excessive and imposed without any allowance being made for his 'guilty' plea. He also complains that he was tricked by the police into pleading guilty to the offence.

As to this last ground, bearing in mind the appellant's record of previous convictions it cannot be said that he was unfamiliar with court procedures, furthermore in light of his police interview admissions and his admission of the facts outlined in Court I cannot accept that there was any 'trickery' involved in his unequivocal plea of guilty.

Needless to say no such complaint was made to the learned trial magistrate nor is it consistent with the appellant's plea in mitigation.

As for the harshness of the sentence, of the appellant's 21 previous convictions, six (6) are for House or Shop Breaking, so the present offence cannot be said to be in any way 'out-of-character' with the appellant's past offending, furthermore, in two (2) of those prior convictions the appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He has learnt little from his past imprisonment and cannot expect any leniency or clemency from the Court.

A custodial sentence in excess of 18 months was well merited in the circumstances, however, in the absence of any record by the learned trial magistrate that he had taken into consideration the appellant's plea of 'guilty', this court is able to mitigate the sentence by a small reduction.

The sentence is accordingly reduced to 18 months imprisonment with effect from the 21st of December 1995. Subject to such reduction in the sentence the appeal is dismissed.

D.V. Fatiaki
JUDGE

At Labasa,
22nd May, 1996.

Haa0004j.95b