Vakaruruwale v State [2000] FJHC 166; Criminal Case 35 of 2000 (30 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 35 OF 2000
(Suva Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 266/2000)

Between:

ILIMELEKI VAKARURUWALE
VILIKESA BALECALA
Appellants

And

STATE
Respondent

Appellants in person
Miss Ashishna Prasad for the State

JUDGMENT

On 31 January 2000 both the appellants Ilimeleki Vakaruruwale and Vilikesa Balecala with two others appeared before the Magistrate’s Court at Suva for the offence of larceny from the person and were on their own plea convicted. On 11 February 2000 they were each sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months.

The Particulars of Offence reads:

Atunaisa Raralevu, Seremaia Vidirevareva, Ilimeleki Vakaruruvale and Vilikesa Balecala on the 21st day of January, 2000 at Samabula in the Central Division stole cash of $3000.00 from the person of Narendra Prasad s/o Sambhu Prasad.

Both have appealed against severity of sentence.

Facts

The facts of the case are as follows (as stated on p8 of Record):

On 21/1/2000, at about 4.30 pm complainant was a Company Director drove car to DAV Girls School Compound where his labourers working on extension of school. Complainant was with a bag with $3,000 for payment of labourers arrived at school, got out of car and at same time Accused 1 came from behind grabbed bag of $3,000 and fled towards Jittu Estate. Complainant raised alarm where labourers and him gave a chase as they were in pursuit of Accused 1, Accused 2 & 3 threw stones at complainant and labourers. Through Jittu Accused 4 handled/took hold of money and ran towards bush where they weren’t able to be located. Got into taxi at Raiwaqa Market and went to Korovou used money to drink. Matter reported to police, interviewed and admitted offence.

First appellant’s submission

The first appellant submits that the sentence is harsh for the part he played. He said that he only threw stones and therefore he should have been charged for throwing object. He said that he does not agree with the Magistrate that he was the ‘leader of the gang’. He only received $100 from this larceny.

He submitted that he is a first offender and is not familiar with Court procedures. He is married with 2 children.

The appellant is asking to be released from prison.

Second appellant’s submission

He said that he must face the consequences for this offence. He is wasting his life in prison. He said he only accompanied the others and was not involved in the commission of the offence.

The appellant said that he is 26 years old and is a student in Trade Certificate at the Fiji Institute of Technology.

Respondent’s submission

The learned counsel for the State submitted that under s21 of the Penal Code aiders and abettors are treated as principal offenders. They all pleaded guilty and admitted the facts as outlined to Court.

Counsel said that there are a number of aggravating factors. The complainant was targeted; it was a pre-planned attack; a certain degree of violence was used. The complainant was robbed of a large sum of money being workers’ wages. Nothing was recovered from them.

She said that the sentence is not harsh and excessive.

Consideration of the appeal

I have weighed the submissions carefully and have perused the record; I find that there is no merit in the appeals against sentence.

Although the second appellant said that he did not take part but merely threw stones and the first appellant said he should only have been charged for throwing object, I find that on the whole of the facts under s21 of the Penal Code all four have been properly convicted.

The appellants have committed a very serious offence by coming in a gang from a remote village in Wainibuka to Suva DAV Girls’ College when they jointly, it appears as pre-arranged, robbed a building contractor of his workmen’s wages. No one will sympathize with the four accuseds in this case in the manner in which they committed this offence. The fact that they shared the moneys stolen from the complainant shows that the commission of the offence was premeditated.

The sentence passed on the appellants is not a day too long and they do not deserve any sympathy from the Courts.

The Court has to bear in mind the importance of deterrent sentences in this type of offence and the public perception of how courts dealt with robbery of this nature where members of the public are put in fear.

The appellants have asked the Court to reduce their sentence but I do not consider it would be right to do so as it is an appropriate one. For these reasons the sentence on the appellants is neither harsh and excessive nor wrong in principle.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
30 June 2000