Turaganisolevu v State [2000] FJHC 161; Criminal Appeal 17 of 2000 (20 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2000
(Nausori Mag. Ct. Cr. Case No. 76/97)

Between:

LORIMA TURAGANISOLEVU
Appellant

And

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. V. Vosarogo for the State

JUDGMENT

On 24 November 1998 in the Magistrate’s Court at Nausori the appellant was convicted of the offence of being in possession of 3.6 gramme of dangerous drugs contrary to section 8(b) and 4(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act Cap.114 as amended by Decree No. 4 of 1990 and further amended by Dangerous Drugs Act (Amendment) No.1 Decree of 1991 and sentenced to imprisonment for three months.

The appellant says that he pleaded guilty because the Police told him to do so. He said that he was not given a chance to mitigate and the record is wrong in that regard.

The learned Counsel for the State submitted that it appears that he is appealing against conviction. He did engage counsel but later changed his plea to one of guilty. The Magistrate thereupon dealt with him in accordance with s.309 of the Penal Code. Counsel referred the Court to the case of Manu Taunolo and The State Crim. Appeal No. 65/93 where Fatiaki J dealt in some detail with the effect of s.309.

Counsel submitted that the charge was read to the accused, he understood the charge and pleaded guilty. The accused admitted the facts and the learned Magistrate proceeded to convict him and after hearing him in mitigation he sentenced him.

Upon perusal of the Record and after hearing both the appellant and the learned Counsel for the State I find that the appeal is devoid of any merit.

This was an unequivocal plea of guilty. There is nothing to show that there was any pressure put on the appellant to plead guilty. He did not tell anyone that he wanted a lawyer. He said that he was not given a chance to mitigate which is contrary to what the Record says. I have to accept the contents of the Record.

I find that the appellant’s conviction was proper. There is nothing wrong with the sentence passed on him.

For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
20 June 2000