State v Lingam - sentence [2001] FJHC 35; Hac0010j.2000s (15 June 2001)

Fiji Islands - The State v Lingam - Pacific Law Materials

ass=MsoNormal align=cenn=center style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> IN THE HIGH COU FIJI

AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 010 OF 2000S

p class=MsoNormal alal align=center style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> STATE

-V-

RAM LINGAM

Mr V. Vosarogo for the State

Mr G. O’Driscoll for the Accused

Hearing: 11th June 2001

Sentence: 15th June 2001

>

SENTENCE

The Accused Ram Lingam has been found guilty on 4 counts taining Money Under Forged Document contrary to section 345(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17. 17. The evidence led at the trial was of the serious breach of trust by the accused, a Travel Agent in respect of the Bank Book and Bank Account of his client. The total amount proved by the Prosecution is $9,000 on the 4 counts. The evidence was that this money was part of the Savings Account of the complainant, who had no other savings. The complainant is a plumber and was also employed by the accused. The obtaining on the basis of forged withdrawal slips, took place between the 29th July 1993 and the 9th September 1993. None of this money was returned to the complainant.

p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> I have heard evidence of the Antecedent Historythe Previous Convictions of the accused. I have also heard submissions in mitigation from crom counsel for the accused.

The accused is 51 years old, is married, and has 4 children, aged between 20 years old ayears old. One child is working and the others are attendinending educational institutions. He is a building constructor who owns his own company, Sunny Builders. He has 2 previous convictions, 1 for criminal trespass in 1982 and another matter in 2000 for Obtaining Money by False Pretence in which he was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years.

In submission counsel urges the court to impose a shorter period of imprisonment with a period of ssion, or an absolute discharge under section 44 of the Pena Penal Code.

The authorities for sentences imposed for fraud related offences appear to reflect a tariff of between 18 months imprisonment and 4 yearrisonment. The decision of n of Pathik J in Gerald Neelamkant Panniker Crim. App. No. 28 of 2000 refers to the guideline decision of the English Court of Appeal in Barrick 81 Crim. App. R. 78 (Per Lord Lane CJ). In Barrick (supra) it was held that relevant matters for sentence were the quality and degree of trust reposed in him, the period over which the fraud had been perpetrated, the use to which the money was put, the effect on the victim, the impact on the effect of public confidence and the offender’s own circumstances.

ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The maximum sentence for an offence under section 345 of the Penal Code is 14 years imprisonment. Taking all the circumstances into account including the evidence of the fact that the complainant trusted the accused, the fact that no money has been returned, the long delay between investigation and trial, the age of the accused, the reliance of his children upon him, and the impact of such offending on public confidence I consider a sentence of 2 years imprisonment to be appropriate. I do not consider that suspension of the sentence is appropriate. As the Court of Appeal said in Barrick (supra) suspension of sentences are not usually appropriate in cases of serious breach of trust. Furthermore, no part of the money has been paid back to the victim to this day.

I therefore sentence Ram Lingam to 2 years imprisonment on each count to be servedurrently.

Nazhat Shameem

JUDGE

At Suva

15th June 2001

Hac0010j.00s