Nadali v The State [2003] FJHC 77; HAA0006j.2003 (24 July 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIM. APP. NO. HAA0006J OF 2003B

BETWEEN:

PAULIASI NADALI

AND

THE STATE

Appellant in Person
Miss S. Shah for the State

Date of Judgment: 24 July 2003
Time of Judgment: 9.30 A.M.

JUDGMENT

The Appellant Pauliasi Nadali was convicted in the Labasa Magistrates’ Court on 5 August 2002 for two (2) charges of housebreaking entering and larceny. The total value of property stolen in one was $704, in the other $503. A total of $630 worth of the items were recovered in respect of both offences. The learned Magistrate sentenced the Appellant to 12 months imprisonment for each charge to be served consecutively.

There is only a single ground for appeal and that is that the sentence was “too harsh and seems unconstitutional.” The Appellant elaborated by alluding to the fact that he had readily cooperated with the police resulting in the recovery of most of the items stolen. He then referred to the other mitigating factors; that he has, since committing these offences gone back to his village and got married, started a business and attended church regularly now. All of these, the Appellant submits, were not taken into account by the learned Magistrate when considering his plea for a non-custodial sentence.

Counsel for the State opposed the appeal. She argued that the offences were serious. They were pre-meditated, the Appellant having scouted and identified vacant residences before breaking into them. Such offences are so prevalent as to raise great concern to law enforcement agencies. At any rate, Counsel stated that the learned Magistrate had in fact considered the mitigating factors raised by the Appellant in his judgment.

The record of the proceedings in the Court below does not support the Appellant’s contention. The learned Magistrate had particularly made reference to the mitigating factors that was raised by the Appellant, before he passed judgment. He had also considered the fact that the Appellant had 21 previous convictions of similar nature to those offences he was being charged, spanning the last 18 years. The Appellant’s record show that he is no more than a habitual thief who preys on the innocent members of the public to satisfy his greed. Under the circumstances, the sentence of 12 months imprisonment is perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of stolen items have been recovered. The sentence cannot be considered harsh or excessive under any measure. Nor is the argument an unconstitutionality of the sentence of any substance.

The Appellant may have mended his ways and does seriously intend to settle down to a normal life as he has just found a partner. But he is first to pay for his crime and if he is really genuinely remorseful of his past conduct, then the next few weeks in prison before his release will not matter a great deal to his new wife and life that awaits him on the outside.

The appeal is dismissed.

F. Jitoko
JUDGE