Prasad v The State [1997] FJHC 35; HAA0002d.1997b (17 March 1997)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LABASA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 0002 OF 1997

p class=MsoNormal amal align=center style=text-align:center>BETWEEN:

SUSHIL PRASAD
s/o Hari Prasad
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant rson
Ms. L. Tabuya and Mr. N. Bhindi for the State

REASONS FOR DECISION

On the 24th of February I allowed the appellant's appeal against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate Court in Labasa after the appellant was convicted on his guilty plea to an offence of Obtaining Money By False Pretences.

The Particulars of Offence alleged that the appellant obtained $40 by falsely pretending that he was a Court Bailiff authorised to collect, receive and receipt maintenance payments ordered against the complainant in Matrimonial Action No. 66 of 1988.

The facts outlined by the police prosecutor further elucidated that the appellant had produced forged papers bearing the Labasa Magistrate Court stamp and further, that as a direct result of the appellant's 'fraud' the complainant was subsequently arrested for non-payment of maintenance arrears and sent to prison for two (2) weeks.

In sentencing the appellant the trial magistrate said inter alia:

"Although the accused is a first offender he had committed a crime of the first magnitude bringing disrepute to the whole judicial system. This sort of crime should be punished with deterrent punishment."

Whilst there can be no denying the seriousness of the offence and its dire consequences to the innocent complainant, the trial magistrate appears to have been unduly vehement in his criticism of the appellant and the offence. Indeed one is tempted to ask how can obtaining forty dollars ($40) by false pretences amount to a 'crime of the first magnitude' (whatever that may mean)? and how can a non-court official bring 'disrepute to the whole judicial system'?

Needless to say so distracted was the trial magistrate that he completely omitted to refer to the reconciliation effected between the parties and the compensation paid to the complainant. As a result he imposed what I consider to be an unduly harsh sentence on a relatively young first offender.

At the hearing of the appeal the appellant who had been in prison 3½ months professed to having learnt a salutary lesson from his incarceration and sought the Court's leniency and 'a second chance'. He also referred to several not dissimilar cases reported in the newspapers in which much larger sums were involved and in which the courts had imposed suspended sentences or very much shorter prison terms.

Learned State Counsel very properly conceded that the sentence was harsh in all the circumstances and accordingly the appeal was allowed and the sentence varied so as to allow the appellant to be released from prison with the remainder of his sentence (i.e. 9 months) suspended for 12 months from the 24th of February.

The appellant was also warned that should he commit, during the period of suspension, any offence for which he was liable to imprisonment, then he would be brought back before this Court and may be required to serve the unexpired portion (i.e. 9 months imprisonment) of his present sentence in addition to any other sentence he may receive for his re-offending.

D.V. Fatiaki
JUDGE

At Labasa,
17th March, 1997.

Haa0002d.97b