Tanidrala v The State [2001] FJHC 63; Haa0046j.2001s (29 August 2001)

Fiji Islands - Tanidrala v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: HAA0046 & HAA0047 OF 2001S

BETWEEN:

ROPATE VESI TANIDRALA

Appellant

AND:

THE STATE

Respondent

p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Appellant in Person

Ms Kou for Respondent

Hearing: 24th August 2001

Judgment: 29th August 2001

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was convicted, on the 16th of May 2001, on two separate files, of the following offences:

Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2001

Statement of Offence

>

LARCENY FROM THE PERSON: Contrary to Section 271 of the Penal Code, Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

p class=MsoNormoNormal style="margin: 1 36.0pt">ROPATE VESI TANIDRALA, on the 15th day of May 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, stole $70.00 cash from the person of SENIANONO, the property of the sahe said SENIANA RAVONO.

Criminal Case No. 1347 of 2001

Statement of Offence

LARCENY: Contrary to Section 259(1) and 262(1) of the Penal Code, Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

&nbB>

ROPATE VESI TANIDRALA, on the 11th day of May, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, stole cash $100.00, the property of SERA CHUNG.

On Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2001, the facts read by the prosecution were that the complainant came o the ANZ Bank on 11th May 2001 at 2.30pm, when the Appellanellant approached her. He identified himself as an army officer and asked her to go to a cafeteria with him. When the complainant took her purse out to pay, he asked her if he could see the photographs in the purse. He took the money out of her purse and gave it back to her. She later discovered that her money was missing and reported the matter to the police. The Appellant was located and interviewed. He admitted the offences.

The Appellant was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. In Criminal Case 1347 of 2001, the facts were th the 15th of May 2001 at 11.30am the Appellant saw the comp complainant shopping in Cumming Street. When she took her purse out of her bag to put $70.00 change into it, the Appellant grabbed the money from her and ran away. He was later apprehended and he admitted committing the offence. $36.15 was recovered.

The learned Magistrate sentenced the Appellant to 12 months imprisonment to be served consecutive to the sentence passed in Case No. 1346/2001. The money recovered was returned to the complainant.

The Appellant appeals against both sentences. For the sake of convenience and clarity, I have dealt with both appeals together. In his petition of appeal, the Appellant says that the total sentence of 3 years imprisonment is harsh and excessive, and that inadequate weight was given to his age (25 years), the welfare of his family and his guilty plea.

ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> State Counsel opposes the appeal saying that both sentences passed were within the accepted tariffs, and that the total sentence reflected the gravity of the offending.

In File No. 1346, the offence of Larceny carries a maximumence of 5 years imprisonment. The sum stolen was $100. The circumstances of the stealing inng involved a measure of premeditation and trickery, which do not mitigate the circumstances of the offending.

Although the Appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, he has a number of previous convictions for the same or similar offencn the circumstances I do nodo not consider the sentence manifestly excessive, nor wrong in principle.

In respect of Case No. 1347 of 2001, the Appellant grabbed the complainant’s purse while she was shopping an away with $70.00. $36.1536.15 of this was later recovered. He has previous convictions for similar offences and has obviously not learnt a lesson from his previous sentences of imprisonment. In mitigation he pleaded guilty, and said he wished to return to Serua Island.

In Poniasi Saulekaleka -v- The State Crim. App. NA 050 of 2001S, I accepted the tariff for pickpocketing offences to be between 12 to 18 mon8 months imprisonment. In the circumstances a 12 month term for a person who has a history of dishonesty offences, is hardly excessive.

Turning next to the totality principle, I find that the total term of 3 years imprisonment for a person who as to make a habit of stealitealing money from women who are out to do their family shopping with their income, to reflect the seriousness of the offending. The totality principle is not offended.

Both appeals are dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem JUDGE

At Suva

n lang=EN-GB>29th August 2001

Haa0046j.01s