Sami v State [2001] FJHC 241; Criminal Appeal 28, 29, 30, & 31.2001 (22 October 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 28, 29, 30 AND 31 OF 2001
(Labasa Crim. Case No. 2 of 2000
Savusavu Crim. Case Nos. 1 of 2000, 13 of 2000, 120 of 2001)

Between:

YANKALLU SAMI s/o Latchna Sami
Appellant

And

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. J. Rabuku for the State

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against sentence in the above appeals.

The Appellant was charged and sentenced as follows:

1. Appeal No. 28/2000
   

Charged with the offence of act with intent to cause grievous harm contrary to section 224(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months.

2. Appeal No. 29/2000
   

Charged for common assault contrary to s.244 of the Penal Code. Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 months. Consecutive to sentence in Appeal 28/2000.

100. Appeal No. 30/2001
     

Charged with criminal trespass contrary to section 197(2) of the Penal Code, Cap.17.

Sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment. Consecutive to sentence in Appeal 28/2001.

4. Appeal No. 31/2001
   

Charged with the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Sentenced to 9 months imprisonment consecutive to sentence in Appeal No. 28/2001.

A total of 24 months imprisonment was imposed on the appellant. He says that the total sentence is harsh and excessive. The complainants in the charges were his close family members. He says that he is on talking terms with them now. The appellant runs a taxi business. He told the Court that that his mother believed in witchcraft and now this is affecting him and that is why he gets into trouble.

The learned Counsel for the State opposes the appeals stating that it was not a question of witchcraft but alcohol consumption. He submits that the sentences are neither harsh nor excessive.

I find that there is no merit in any of the appeals. The trouble with the appellant is that he drinks too much and then causes trouble with his family. That actually is his downfall. I cannot imagine him driving a taxi with that kind of habit. He does not deserve any sympathy from anyone.

These offences were committed at various intervals, so consecutive sentences had to be passed on him making a total of 24 months. However, I am inclined to agree with him in one respect, namely, 9 months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm with minor injuries is slightly on the high side.

I therefore set aside the sentence of 9 months in Appeal No. 30 of 2001 and substitute it with one of 6 months. The rest of the sentence are to stand as they are neither harsh nor excessive or wrong in principle. The appeals are allowed to that extent.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Labasa
22 October 2001