Taucilagi v The State [2002] FJHC 234; HAM0046D.2002S (18 November 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO: HAM 46 OF 2002S

Between:

JOSEVATA TAUCILAGI
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Ms P. Narayan for Applicant
Ms L. Chandra for State

Hearing: 18th November 2002
Ruling: 18th November 2002

RULING

The applicant has applied for bail pending appeal on the ground that his sentence will have been substantially served when his appeal is heard next year, and that his appeal has a good chance of success.

He was convicted on the 2nd of October in the Nausori Magistrate’s Court on the following counts:

Case file No. 535/02

Statement of Offence

LARCENY: Contrary to section 259 and 262 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

Josevata Taucilagi on the 18th day of September, 2002 at Nausori in the Central Division stole 1 Kenwood Speaker valued $260.00, 4 mag wheel cap valued $48.00, 1 carry bouy sign valued $60.00, 1 amplifier valued $700.00, 2 pioneer speaker valued $210.00, boom box valued $80.00, to the total value of $1,358.00 from van registration no. 257 and CQ 382 the property of Vijay Munish Sharma s/o Dhirendra Prasad.

Case File No. 536/02

Statement of Offence

LARCENY: Contrary to section 259 and 262 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

Josevata Taucilagi on the 17th day of September 2002 at Nausori in the Central Division stole 1 equalizer valued $170.00, 1 CD charger valued $675.00, 1 pioneer radio valued $596.00, 1 nokia vodaphone valued $329.00, 2 speaker valued $250.00, 13 CD valued $140.00, to the total value of $2,190 from van registration number DG521, the property of Nil Nilesh Prasad s/o Nirendra Prasad.

All items were recovered and returned to the owner. The Applicant was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each count, consecutive to each other. At the hearing of this application counsel for the State said that the Applicant had one previous conviction, for larceny of a duck.

The grounds of appeal are that the sentence was harsh, severe, excessive and wrong in principle. The State objects to bail, saying that the State was prepared to have the appeal brought forward, that only 6 weeks had been served of the 18 months imposed and that no good grounds had been shown to justify bail. Counsel for the Applicant said that the Applicant was 21 years old, was likely to succeed in his appeal, and that a refusal of bail would render his appeal nugatory.

The principles governing bail pending appeal are well-settled. Bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Relevant considerations are whether a substantial term of the sentence imposed will have been served by the time the appeal is heard, an obviously meritorious appeal, or other exceptional circumstances in relation to the offender.

In this case, the sentences imposed were within the tariff for larceny. The appeal is listed for January, but State counsel agrees that it be brought forward. I am prepared to hear it on the 29th of November 2002. By that date, the Applicant would have served only 2 months of his sentence. There are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a grant of bail. This application is dismissed. The appeal is re-listed for hearing on the 29th of November 2002 at 9.30am.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
18th November 2002