Tabuaduadua v The State [1996] FJHC 49; Haa0028j.96b (16 September 1996)

Fiji Islands - Tabuaduadua v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

At Labasa

Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 0028 OF 1996

Between:

PENI KORO TABUADUADUA
Appellant

Aspan>

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. L. Laveti for the State

JUDGMENT

On the the appellant was convicted in the Savusavu Magistrate Court after fter he pleaded 'guilty' to two (2) offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act. He was sentenced on Count 1: Being in Possession of a Dangerous Drug to 12 months imprisonment and on Count 2: Cultivating a Dangerous Drug to 3 months imprisonment, making a total of (12 + 3) = 15 months imprisonment.

The appellant now appeals againstsentences imposed on the ground that they are both 'harsh and excessive' for> for a first offender such as himself and he urges the Court to consider the plight of his young family in support.

The facts of the first count were that b>Savusavu police acting on information, intercepted a ed a bus in which the appellant was travelling and recovered a bag belonging to the appellant which contained four (4) parcels of dried leaves. A further two (2) parcels of dried leaves were recovered from the appellant's back trouser-pocket when he was searched at the Savusavu Police Station. The contents of the parcels were later analysed and found to contain 379.5 gms of Indian Hemp commonly known as Marijuana.

The facts on the second count arose during the course of the appellant's police interview when he admitted planting Indian Hemp and upon a subsequent search of the appellant's plantation, a single plant was recovered.

State Counsel in oppothe appeal drew the Courts attention to the mandatory nature of the penalties that must be t be imposed for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act as set out in the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of the 1990 and further amended by Decree No. 1 of 1991.

In this latter regard the '1990 Decree' provides for an offence of BeinPossession of Indian Hemp under Section 8(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Count 1), a minimum penalty of 12 months imprisonment, and for an offence of Growing Indian Hemp under Section 8(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Count 2), a minimum penalty of 3 months imprisonment.

Quite plaine legislature in its collective wisdom has decided that offences involving 'dangerougerous drugs' which term includes Indian Hemp, are so serious (and perhaps prevalent), that nothing short of an immediate prison sentence must be imposed without any consideration for the particular offender involved.

In the circumstances, whilst I can sympathise with the appe's predicament, it is the unwavering duty of this Court to t to uphold and enforce the law however 'harsh' it may appear in its operation and whatever the personal circumstances of the offender and the consequences on his family might be.

In this case the appellant who is a first offender who pleaded 'guilty', received the minimum sentences which could be imposed by the trial magistrate for the offences which he committed, and to that extent the appellant has been shown as much leniency as the law permits.

In the circumstances, there is no merit at all in the suggestion that the sentences imposed'harsh and excessive'sive'. The appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.

D.tiaki
JUDGE

ass=MsoNormaNormal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> At Labasa,
16th September, 1996.

Haa0028j.96b