Navunicagi v The State [2001] FJHC 46; HAA0038j.2001s (18 July 2001)

Fiji Islands - Navunicagi v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA 038 OF 2001S

(Suva Magistrates Court Cr. Case No. 196/2001)

BETWEEN:

ILIVASI NAVUNICAGI 1"> Appellant

AND:

THE STATE

Respondent

Appellant in Person

Mr T. Romanu for Respondent

Hearing: Friday 13th July 2001

Judgment: Wednesday 18th July 2001

JUDGMENT

On 20th February 2001, the Appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty to the following offence:

Statement of Offence

LARCENY IN DWELLING HOUSE OF PROPERTIES TO A VALUE AMOUNTING NOT LESS THAN TEN DOLLARS: Contrary to section 27of the Penal Code, Act 17.<17.

Particulars of Offence

nbsp;

ILIVASI NAVUNICAGI, on the 14th day of January 2000 at Ln the Central Division stole in the dwelling house of MARIAMARIA DEGEI, chattel (one Tabua valued $100.00 and two Masi valued $500.00) value amounting not less than ten dollars, the properties of the said MARIA DEGEI, to the total amount of $600.00

The Appellant pleaded guilty, and the prosecution outlined the facts. The victim of thence is the Appellant’s mother, who lived with the Appellantllant at Matata Village. On the 14th of January, the Appellant’s mother was told by a relative that she suspected that the Appellant had removed some clothes from her house. She went to check and found a tabua and two pieces of masi missing from her drawer. On 27th December 2000, the Appellant was interviewed under caution, and he admitted stealing the items, saying that he had pawned them in Lautoka.

The Appellant has a number of previous convictions for larceny, house breaking and factory-breaking. He received suspended sent for these offences until htil his conviction for larceny in February 2000, in the Lautoka Magistrates Court, for which he received 3 months imprisonment.

It was probably because the learned Chief Magistrate dered that the Appellant deserved no further leniency from the court, that he sentenced himd him to 2 years imprisonment.

In his submissions on appeal, the Appellant said that he is 20 years old, married withhildren, unemployed and had returned all the items to his mhis mother. His mother, Maria Degei, was in court and confirmed this. She further said that she was supporting the family in the Appellant’s absence in prison, and that the Appellant’s wife also stayed with her. She said that she had forgiven her son and supported his appeal.

State Counsel opposed the appeal saying that it was right in principle and not manifestly excessive. He said that larceny was noeconcilable offence, and thnd that the sentence should be upheld.

It is correct that larceny is not a reconcilable offence. It is for that reason, that reconciliation and reparation are not defences to the offence of larceny. However, both reconciliation and reparation are relevant to the mitigation of sentence, and may in appropriate cases justify a more lenient sentence then would normally be passed.

Reconciliation and reparation provide evidence to the court, that the offender is remorseful and truly regrets what he has done. Where the offender has taken the trouble to sincerely make amends for the great wrong he has done his victim, by apologising, by compensating him/her for the loss, and by doing so without prompting from the court, the court is entitled to accept that he is remorseful. Reparation and reconciliation, concepts which are important components of Pacific culture, may justify leniency of sentence because they reflect remorse and a genuine attempt to correct the harm done by the offending. These concepts have been incorporated in to the criminal justice systems in other jurisdictions in the Pacific, notably in the Youth Courts of New Zealand, and have been recognised for many years in our own courts as being matters which mitigate sentence.

The fact, therefore, that the Appellant has returned the items he stole, to his mother, has apologised to her and econciled with her, is a re a reason to allow this appeal.

Furthermore, whilst the Appellant is in prison, his mother, who is the victim of the offence, is suffering because she is supporting their family. This is clearly an unusual case where the victim is suffering the direct consequences of the offender’s imprisonment.

The Appellant has already served 5 months imprisonment. In all the circumstances his sentenc2 years imprisonment is substituted with a term of 2 years ears imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

This appeal succeeds.

Nazhat Shameem

JUDGE

At Suva

18th July 2001

Haa0038J.01S