| Fiji Islands - The State v Verebalavu - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL (MISC) JURISDICTION
MISC CASE NO HAM0006 OF 1998
THE STATE
v
KEMUELI BALE VEREBALAVU
and JIUTA VUAKA
Counsel: Mr Petaia for the State;
Accused in person
Sentencing: 5th March 1998
REMARKS OF PAIN J. ON SENTENCE
You both appear for sentence on a joint charge of robbery with violence. The learned Magistrate who heard the case committed you to
this court for sentence as he considered that the maximum sentence he could impose was insufficient.
You both pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court and admitted the prosecution summary of facts. That comprehensive summary shows that this was a very serious case of robbery with violence. It
was committed by the two of you with one other person. The State is unable to give the Court any information regarding this other
offender. However, it is clear from the record that this was a joint criminal enterprise by all three offenders.
The offence involved an attack on an elderly farming couple who live alone on their farm property, a short distance from the village
of Namena.
About 9 to 9.30 p.m. on 4th January this year, the husband went to a building about 25 metres from the house to switch off the generator.
He was grabbed from behind and a hand was put over his mouth. He was punched in the ribs and on his face. He fell to the ground,
was further assaulted and left lying on the ground injured. The assailants then went to the house. The wife managed to lock the door.
The assailants then struck the door with a cane knife and threw stones to break the glass on the door. One of the stones hit the
wife on the forehead and she fell to the floor bleeding profusely. The assailants then entered the house and kicked her while she
was lying on the floor. They then ransacked the house and stole $2500 in cash, $4000 worth of jewellery and a .22 rifle valued at
$1200. This took about 15 minutes during which time the husband and wife were further assaulted and their pleas for mercy were ignored.
Both victims suffered injuries. They were admitted to hospital that night and remained for six days.
When interviewed both of you admitted committing the offence. $400 was recovered from the first accused and $170 was recovered from the second accused. You also showed the Police the place where the .22 rifle was hidden.
This offending calls for a substantial sentence. It was a violent robbery involving an attack upon peaceful citizens in their own
home. It must have been a terrifying experience for this couple. In addition to the physical injuries they must have suffered emotional
trauma. They have also suffered financially.
There are some aggravating features. This was not opportunist offending. It was clearly a planned and premeditated offence committed
by 3 persons who wore masks and carried a weapon. There was a substantial personal attack upon the victims and upon their home. The
offenders used concerted and unnecessary violence from the outset and displayed a callous disregard for the plight of the victims.
A substantial amount of property with a total value of $7700 was stolen and only $1770 worth has been recovered.
State counsel has referred to English sentencing authorities. I agree with the general principles but in considering the actual sentence
to be imposed in this case I have had regard to such Fiji Court of Appeal decisions as Iliaseri Saqasaqa, v State (App 19 of 1993), Lote Raikabula & Anor v State (App, 12 & 13 of 1994), Apenisa Ralulu v State (App 9 of 1995) and Joseva Lui & Ors v State (App 5 of 1997) . In these cases sentences of 6, 7 and 8 years imprisonment were imposed or confirmed on charges of Robbery with
violence. However, no two cases are the same and a sentence must be imposed that is appropriate for the particular offending and
takes into account any aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The prevalence of this crime and the general concern, and fear it is creating in the community requires the imposition of salutary
and deterrent sentences. The message must be given to offenders and potential offenders that lengthy prison sentences can be expected
for this type of offending.
In my view a sentence of 8 years imprisonment is an appropriate starting point for a very serious robbery with violence of this type.
In this case the aggravating features, particularly the joint enterprise by 3 persons, the use of a weapon, the actual violence used,
and injuries caused to the victims justify a longer term.
Neither accused is entitled to credit for previous good character. Both have recent previous convictions for offences involving violence.
Their personal circumstances are not unique. They are aged 24 and 30. There is nothing significant to justify a reduction of the sentence
for this serious crime. The gravity of the offending outweighs their personal situations and plea for leniency.
However, it is a mitigating circumstance that you both admitted committing the offence and assisted the police to recover what remained
of the stolen property. That is an important factor in your favour. The offenders wore masks and there is no suggestion that the
victims recognized them. Your co-operation and confessions were a significant factor in this prosecution. Moreover you both pleaded
guilty at the first opportunity. Your unequivocal pleas of guilty were an acknowledgment of your responsibility and avoided a trial.
As a matter of general policy courts will give credit to a defendant who pleads guilty although the extent may vary on the particular
circumstances of each case. A realistic allowance must be given for these matters in this case.
Having regard to the factors I have mentioned namely, the starting point for sentence, the aggravating features of the offence and,
most importantly, the co-operation and pleas of guilty of both accused I consider the appropriate term of imprisonment to be six
and half years.
Accordingly, you are each sentenced to six and a half years imprisonment.
Justice D B Pain
