Buli v State [2000] FJHC 160; Criminal Appeal 44 of 2000 (2 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2000
(Suva Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 753/2000)

Between:

JEREMAIA BULI
Appellant

And

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. A. Prasad for the State

JUDGMENT

The appellant’s appeal is against the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment imposed on him on his own plea on 27 March 2000 for the offence of larceny from the person contrary to section 271 of the Penal Code.

The Particulars of Offence reads:

JEREMAIA BULI on the 24th day of March 2000 at Suva in the Central Division stole a wallet containing $312.00 (Fiji) and $60.00 (US) from the person of SUN YI.

The facts are that the accused, an unemployed 21 year old youth, snatched the wallet of the complainant an 18 year old U.S.P. student while he was purchasing sweets at Bhikabhai’s sweet shop on Victoria Parade, Suva. The wallet contained $312 cash and $60 American notes. All this was recovered from the accused.

The appellant submits that the sentence is harsh and excessive in view of his plea of guilty and the fact that all the monies have been recovered.

The learned State Counsel while opposing the appeal stated that bearing in mind the accused’s nine previous convictions which were of serious nature the sentence is proper.

Having considered the appellant’s submission and what the learned State Counsel had to say, I find that there is no merit in the appeal.

The circumstances under which the offence was committed are serious. People should be able to do their shopping without fear of being robbed.

The appellant has a number of previous convictions of a serious nature. The Court it appears was lenient with him in 1998 for house-breaking entering and larceny when he was bound over. He cannot expect a similar sentence this time.

The learned Magistrate has taken into account the mitigating factors, namely, plea of guilty and that the moneys involved have been recovered.

The sentence is neither harsh and excessive nor wrong in principle. It is well within the sentencing range for such an offence.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
2 June 2000