Kalitakia v State [2000] FJHC 162; Criminal Appeal 47 of 2000 (20 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2000
(Suva Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 577/00)

Between:

JONE KALITAKIA
Appellant

And

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. Resina Senikuraciri for the State

JUDGMENT

On 7 March 2000 the appellant was on his own plea convicted and sentenced on three counts, namely, count one, larceny from the person contrary to s271 of the Penal Code, count two, carrying an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to s96(1) of the Penal Code and count three, found in possession of dangerous drugs contrary to s8(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act Cap.114 amended by the Dangerous Drugs Act (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 1990 and later No. 1 of 1991. He was sentenced to imprisonment on count 1 - 18 months, count 2 - 12 months and count 3 - 3 months to be served concurrently to each other, making a total of 18 months.

The appellant appeals against severity of sentence.

His grounds of appeal are that he pleaded guilty, that the stolen property was fully recovered, that the knife found on him was used as a tool and not as a weapon and that he found the drugs and was planning to destroy it when he got caught.

The appellant submits that the sentences imposed on him are harsh and excessive. He began to explain how he came to be in possession of the knife and drugs. These very matters were brought to the attention of the learned Magistrate. He told the Court that he is 25 years old and is married with a 8 month old child (a son). He was a FIT student and has completed Stage 4 in Mechanical Engineering course.

The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Magistrate took into account all the mitigating factors. She said that correct sentences were passed on the appellant and the sentences in the first two counts were relatively light. She submits that the learned Magistrate did not err in law when he sentenced the appellant. She says that the appeal against sentence be dismissed.

Upon a careful consideration of the submissions of the appellant and the learned State Counsel I find that there is no merit in the appeal.

The learned Magistrate has taken into account all that has to be considered and proceeded to sentence the appellant.

The first Count is very serious and the daring manner in which he seized the money bag containing $7,483.84 is something that no one would like to see it happen. The police were very quick in apprehending the appellant with all the money intact for which they have to be commended. Had it not been for this quick action the appellant would have been laughing all the way home. He deserves very little or any sympathy from the Courts.

The sentences are not a day too long. Hence they are neither harsh and excessive nor wrong in principle.

The appeal is dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
20 June 2000