Kunamomo v The State [1999] FJHC 105; Haa0070j.1999b (9 September 1999)

Fiji Islands - Kunamomo v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LABASA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

1. KEMUELI KUNAMOMO
2. EMOSI RAITALA
Appellants

AND:

Respondent

Mr. J. Rabuku for Star State

JUDGMENT

On 9 June 1999 the second appellant EMOSI RAITALA along with the first appellant was convicted by Maika Nakora Esq., the Resident Magistrate, Labasa on his own plea of the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 293 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17 and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

The Particulars of Offence are that the appellant with another (the first appellant) "on the 30th day of May, 1999, at Labasa in the Northern Division robbed RAMESH CHAND s/o Hardeo, of $100.00 cash with a Panasonic brand car stereo valued at $150.00 and at the same time of such robbery did use personal violence to the said RAMESH CHAND s/o Hardeo."

The appeal is against severity of sentence.

At the hearing of the Appeal the appellant said that the sentence is harsh and excessive. He said that the learned Magistrate failed to take into account his plea of guilty and that he is a first offender. He said that as a result of him being in prison his family is suffering. He told the Court that he is 24 years of age. He asked if suspended could be imposed on him.

The learned State Counsel submitted that the sentence is neither harsh nor excessive bearing in mind that this a prevalent offence. The assault in this case was on a victim who is a taxi driver 'making a living'.

I have considered the appeal. The circumstances in which the robbery took place on the complainant leaves much to be desired and no other form of sentence than an immediate custodial sentence was warranted in this case. The following remarks of the learned Magistrate before sentencing was justified:

"I've said time and again that Robbery with Violence is a prevalent Offence around Fiji lately. The complainant who is a taxi driver in this case was going about his lawful business in providing much needed transportation at that time of the night and his life was at risk".

An offence of this nature and the manner in which it was committed must deserve serious punishment and receive it.

The learned Magistrate was quite entitled to take account of the prevalence of the offence where he sits, and to seek to send a message to others minded to indulge in this kind of behaviour, as to the Court's determination to punish them severely for it.

Bearing in mind the mitigating factors I am satisfied that the sentence of two years' imprisonment was entirely appropriate for an offence of this kind. It was correct in principle and not manifestly excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.

D. Pathik
JUDGE

At Labasa
9 September 1999

Haa0070j.99b