beuka v The State [2002] FJHC 110; HAA0013D.2002S (14 May 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0013 OF 2002

Between:

TOME BEUKA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 10th May 2002
Ruling: 14th May 2002

Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr W. Kuruisaqila for Respondent

JUDGMENT

The Applicant applies for leave to appeal out of time, against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Nausori Magistrates Court on 14^th June 1999. The sentence was for the offences of Robbery with Violence and Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle, alleged to have been committed on the 19^th of November 1998. The learned Magistrate dealt with a total of seven court files together. He sentenced the Applicant to a total of 9 years imprisonment, after considering individual sentencing and the principle of totality.

Under section 310(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court may enlarge the 28 day appeal period Afor good cause.@ Good cause includes a case where a question of law of unusual difficulty is involved, and where the Appellant has been unable to obtain a copy of the court record.

In considering an application for leave to appeal out of time, a court generally considers the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, whether the appeal has any prospects of success and whether an injustice will arise if leave is refused.

The Applicant in his submissions, said that although the delay was considerable, it was caused by the fact that he was unrepresented and ignorant of the court processes. He further said that his pleas of guilty were equivocal, and the sentence unduly harsh and excessive.

The State opposes this application, saying that no good cause has been shown for enlargement of the appeal period, and that the appeal lacked any merit.

The delay in this case is considerable. Further although the Applicant says that he did not know he had only 28 days to appeal, the record shows that he was informed of this right by the learned Magistrate after sentence was delivered. Further with eight previous convictions, the Applicant was not a stranger to the court processes.

As to prospects of success of the appeal, the Applicant was on bail for most of the period between first call, and his pleas of guilty. Further, this was not a case of an accused person pleading guilty as soon as he was brought to court. He pleaded not guilty on the 26^th of April 1999, after the charges were read and explained to him. They were read and explained to him again on 4^th June 1999, and he then pleaded guilty after he said he understood them. The facts, which he agreed to, were outlined simply and clearly disclosed the offences. He had admitted the offence to the police. The Applicant mitigated and asked for forgiveness, saying he knew he had done the wrong thing. There is nothing on the record to show that his pleas might have been equivocal.

As to sentence, the sentencing remarks of the learned Magistrate are clear and principled. Given the multiple nature of the offending including three offences of Robbery with Violence, the total sentence of 9 years imprisonment was a fair reflection of the nature of the offending. It was certainly not manifestly excessive.

In all the circumstances of this case, I consider that the Applicant has not shown good cause for enlargement of time to appeal. His application is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
14^th May 2002