Ravunikau v The State [1998] FJHC 23; Haa0003j.1998b (27 February 1998)

Fiji Islands - Ravunikau v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LABASA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1998
(Labasa Magistrates Court Criminal Case 1070 of 1997)

BETWEEN:

:

PAULA RAVUNIKAU
AND
SAIRUSI VEREALAWA
Appellants

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellants inon

P. Petaia for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The two appellants, both first offenders, tog with a third man armed themselves with a pick axe and some cane knives and, in the early hrly hours of the morning of 12 November 1997, having lain in wait for it, ambushed a van driven by Prem Chand. They attacked the van causing substantial damage. They dragged Prem Chand out of the van and assaulted him his passengers so severely that at least one of them was seriously injured. They stole $900 which they knew was being carried in the van.

Following excellent police work the appellants were swiftly located and most of the money was recovered. The appellants pleaded guilty to robbery with violence. Both asked the Court for forgiveness and promised not to re-offend. They were both sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

On appeal, the two appellants say that a sentence of 2 years imprisonment is harsh and excessive. They emphasise that they were first offenders, say that they were led astray and that such a sentence will deprive them of hope for the future. They ask for mercy and promise not to re-offend. They point out that there is nothing in the record to show that the Resident Magistrate (M. Fernando Esq.) took their guilty pleas into account before passing sentence. On this ground alone they say they are entitled to a reduction in their sentences.

The High Court has repeatedly emphasised that accused persons pleading guilty are entitled to have that plea overtly taken into account when sentence is passed. The fact that it has been taken into account should also clearly be noted in the record. In this case however I am satisfied that the outcome could not possibly have been affected. My reason for reaching this conclusion is that the sentence passed was, in my opinion, manifestly lenient given the appalling circumstances of the offence that I am surprised that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did not itself appeal.

Within the last few days the Fiji Court of Appeal has pointed out that sentences for the most serious crime of robbery with violence, a crime carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment need generally to be more severe. I have given anxious consideration to whether I should exercise my powers to increase the sentences imposed on these appellants under the provisions of Section 319(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code but have concluded eventually that I should not interfere. Apart from its leniency there was nothing wrong with the sentences imposed by the Resident Magistrate and in truth the Appellants have cause for relief not cause for complaint. The appeals are dismissed.

M.D. Scott
JUDGE

27 February, 1998

Haa0003j.98b