Matavesi v The State [1998] FJHC 61; Haa0010j.1998b (30 April 1998)

Fiji Islands - Matavesi v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LABASA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

RATU KISI MATAVESI
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Responde>

Appellant in Person
Ms. Laisa Laveti for the State

JUDGMENT

This appeal is against the severity of sentence.

On 17 December 1997 the Appellant was on his own plea convicted at the Magistrate's Court, Labasa by the Resident Magistrate Moses Fernando Esq., of the offence of shop breaking entering and larceny contrary to section 300(a) of the Penal Code Cap. 17 and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

In this case the complainant's shop was broken into by the appellant with another and items to the total value of $1686.00 were stolen. Very few items were recovered and the bulk of them were sold in Suva. The appellant has two previous convictions for similar offences in February and August 1997.

The Appellant says that the sentence imposed on him is harsh and excessive. He is 17 years old (D/B 20.4.81). He said that he finds prison life very hard and now likes to be a good citizen.

The learned State Counsel while opposing the appeal said that the appellant's two previous convictions were as a juvenile. She said that there should have been a Welfare Officer's Report before sentence but it was not available despite a request for it. The parents of the appellant were present in Court at the time of sentence.

Ms. Laveti said that the present offence was committed while he was on bail in Crim. Case No. 557/97 on three counts of burglary; a sentence of six months on each count concurrent was imposed on him. She said that the present sentence was appropriate.

The appellant has no doubt committed a serious offence. It is worthy of note that on the date i.e. 17.12.97 as the sentence on the present offence he was sentenced in the said Crim. Case no. 557/97 of the offence of burglary committed between the period 7 March 1997 and 11 April 1997. The present offence was committed on 6 March 1997.

I am of the view that since he was given 6 months on the burglary counts he should have received the same sentence concurrent for the shop-breaking.

Bearing in mind the mitigating factors and the youth of the appellant the sentence of 12 months is set aside and substituted with one of 6 months concurrent with the sentence in Crim. Case No. 557/97.

Appeal allowed in part.

D. Pathik
JUDGE

At Labasa
30 April, 1998

Haa0010j.98b