Biutidaliconi v The State [2002] FJHC 86; HAA0008J.2002B (23 July 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0008 OF 2002

Between:

ROPATE BIUTIDALICONI
Appellant

- and -

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. J. Rabuku for the State

JUDGMENT

The is an appeal against a sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed by the Taveuni Magistrates Court upon the appellant’s conviction for an offence of Larceny of Cattle.

The appellant had been jointly charged with 2 others for the offence and had pleaded guilty. He also admitted to being part of a group of cattle rustlers who had willingly taken part in the offence charged.

In his letter of appeal the appellant advances several grounds including, the failure of the trial magistrate to make any allowance for his guilty plea, thus saving Court time and the absence of any rehabilitative element in the sentence imposed.

Additionally, at the hearing of the appeal, the appellant emphasised his relative youth (Date of Birth: 23.9.83); the fact that he had pleaded guilty and was a first offender unlike his co-accused who had received the same sentence. The appellant also claimed that he had committed the offence as a result of being 'in wrong company’ and professed to have learnt his lesson from his eight (8) months of incarceration.

State Counsel for his part, without conceding the appeal, accepted that the sentence 'could be on the high side for this appellant’.

The trial magistrate in sentencing the appellant said:

'The offence is serious especially when we consider the fact that these 3 were part of a group who steal the sweat of the estate owners plus the fact that they cut parts of animals and leave the rest of the carcass to rot on the field.’

Plainly the trial magistrate treated the appellant and his co-accused on an equal footing despite the differences in their ages and past behaviour. Furthermore no mention is made of their guilty pleas.

In this latter regard it is significant that a co-accused of the appellant Aborosio Ikanidevo had his sentence reduced, on appeal, to 15 months imprisonment because the court considered it was '...... on the high side (and) there is nothing in the record to show that the mitigating factors have been taken into account ......’ (see: Labasa Crim. App. No. 7 of 2002 per Pathik J.).

In similar vein and mindful that the present appellant is younger than his above-named co-accused and with a view to dispelling any concerns about disparity in the sentences, I allow the appeal and reduce the appellant’s sentence to one of twelve (12) months imprisonment with effect from the 12^th of November 2001.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Labasa,
23^rd July, 2002.