Prasad v The State [1997] FJHC 155; Haa0042j.97b (14 October 1997)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LABASA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 0042 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

ANAND PRASAD
s/o Ram Harakh
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. L. Laveti for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

On the 21st of July 1997 the appellant was convicted by the Labasa Magistrate Court after he pleaded 'guilty' to an offence of LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. Upon his conviction the appellant was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment to be served consecutive to a sentence he was then serving. The appellant now appeals against the sentence urging his guilty plea and the plight of his young family in support.

The brief facts of the case were that the appellant had joined the complainant over a few drinks at a private members Club and had followed the complainant out of the Club along a back road where he had snatched the money from the complainant's hand and disappeared. He was later traced, questioned and charged for the offence.

At the hearing of the appeal the appellant gave a lengthy account denying the offence and stating that he had only pleaded guilty to facilitate his application for extra-mural release. In the same breadth and quite inconsistently, he offered to refund the complainant's money.

The appellant seeks the court's mercy and leniency and promises not to re-offend if he is given another chance.

I note however that the appellant "has 15 previous convictions and most are for larceny and robbery with violence" and in respect of all these past convictions the Labasa Magistrates Court has exhausted every known non-custodial measure available to it in sentencing the appellant including probation, suspended sentences, binding over and fines and on each occasion the appellant has re-offended and thereby abused the Court's leniency and mercy. He can therefore expect no sympathy from this Court.

As for his 'guilty' plea the circumstances in which he changed his plea and the duration in which he maintained his innocence, even on appeal, indicates a complete absence of remorse on his part. As for the plight of his young family all I can say is that if he was truly concerned for their welfare the appellant would not have committed this offence which is aggravated by its added meanness towards a drinking companion.

In my view the trial magistrate was quite entitled to take the view that the 'Accused deserves a good custodial sentence'. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

D.V. Fatiaki
JUDGE

At Labasa,
14th October, 1997.

Haa0042j.97b