SIVANIOLO VUNAKECE and SAIRUSI TOKATOKA on the 4th day of April, 2000 at Lodoni, Tailevu in the Central Division, robbed RAJENDRA
SWAMI GOUNDAR s/o MUNSAMI GOUNDAR of $200.00 cash and at the time of such robbery did use personal violence to the said RAJENDRA
SWAMI GOUNDAR s/o MUNSAMI GOUNDAR.
The prosecution outlined the facts as follows; the complainant, one Rajendra Swami Goundar, was a shop owner of Lodoni. On the 4th
of May 2000, the Appellant with one Sairusi
Tokatoka confronted the complainant who was talking to a school er outside the shop, at about 7.50pm. The Appellant and his companion
were both masked and and armed with cane knives. They threatened the complainant and the school teacher, and the school teacher
escaped. The other defendant then entered the shop and stole $200.00 cash. The Appellant remained outside with the shop owner, threatening
him.
The matter was reported to the police. The Appellant and Sairusi Tokatoka had shared the money, and the police recovered $99.43 together
with 1kg wakg waka which had been bought with the proceeds of the crime.
The Appellant agreed to these facts. In mitigation, he said he was 21 years old and a farmer in Lodoni Village. The LeaMagistrate
sentenced both doth defendants to 3 years imprisonment, after considering their guilty pleas. He said the offence was quite prevalent,
and sentenced both to 3 years imprisonment each. The Appellant had a number of previous convictions, one in 1997 for Robbery with
Violence, for which he had been bound over to be of good behaviour. At the time of sentence, he had two pending cases, one for Robbery
with Violence, and another for Being Found in Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
At this appeal, the Appellant expressed remorse, saying that he had elderly parents on his farm, and thawished to join his parents
to farm the land. He said that hhat he is 26 years old, a bachelor, and that he has now rehabilitated himself. He said he has not
been sentenced in the pending cases.
In response State Counsel submitted that the sentence passed was lower than the tariff of four to seven years for Robbery with Violence.
He referred to the Appellant’s previous convictions, saying that the Appellant was not entitled to the leniency due to a first offender.
In Ilaisa Sousou Cava Crim. Case HAC 007/2000S, I reviewed sens for Robbery with Violence in New Zealand, England and Fijd Fiji. I direct myself in accordance
with those guidelines, and those of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in R -v- Moananui (1983) NZLR. I find the range of four to seven years imprisonment to be the normal tariff for robbery (without firearms but with
the use of other weapons) with violence. The starting point for this offence could have been within this range, with an appropriate
adjustment down, for the guilty plea. Assuming that the Learned Magistrate commenced at the lowest point of four years imprisonment,
a discount of one year imprisonment was appropriate for the guilty plea. No further discount would have been appropriate. The attack
on a defenceless shop owner, the use of cane-knives, and of masks in what was evidently a pre-meditated attack, are all factors calling
for a deterrent custodial sentence. In using four years as the starting point, the Learned Magistrate was certainly not being excessively
harsh in approach. Although more reasoned remarks might have been expected of the Learned Magistrate, setting out the discount given
for the guilty plea and any factors he found aggravating or mitigating, I do not consider that the sentence of three years imprisonment
was wrong in principle, or was manifestly excessive.
The appeal is dismissed.
Nazhat Shameem
<1"> JUDGE
At Suva
8th June 2001n>
Haa012j.01s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2001/31.html
