Cava v The State [2004] FJHC 103; HAA0043J.2004S (21 May 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA043-045 OF 2004S

Between:

ISIRELI CAVA
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 14th May 2004
Judgment: 21st May 2004

Counsel:

Appellant in Person

Ms L. Chandra for State

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was charged as follows:

HAA43 of 2004 (Magistrates’ Court Case No. 71 of 2003)

Statement of Offence

STOWAWAY: Contrary to Section 131(a) of the Marine Act No. 35 of 1986.

Particulars of Offence

ISIRELI CAVA on the 17th day of August, 2002 and 10th day of January, 2003 at Suva did secreted himself and went to sea in a ship namely Captain Tasman without the consent of either the owner, consignee, Master, Mate or any other person entitled to give that consent.

HAA44 of 2004 (Magistrates’ Court Case No. 2740 of 2003)

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to Section 293(1)(b) of the Penal Code Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

ISIRELI CAVA on the 10th day of December, 2003 at Suva in the Central Division being armed with cane knife robbed MEREANI PETERS and ALATINI JOE, teller of Colonial National Bank cash of FJ$9,570.00 and at the same time of such robbery did use personal violence to the said MEREANI PETERS and ALATINI JOE.

HAA45 of 2004 (Magistrates’ Court Case No. 2741 of 2003)

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to Section 293(1)(b) of the Penal Code Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

ISIRELI CAVA on the 5th day of December 2003 at Suva in the Central Division, being armed with cane knife robbed ASIVINA TUINAWA, teller of Western Union cash of US$320.00, AUS$100.00, FJ$5,263.28, VATU$200.00, NZ$900.00 and YEN$900.00 and at the time of such robbery did use personal violence to the said ASIVINA TUINAWA.

He waived his right to counsel and pleaded guilty to all charges. Although there were separate files for each charge, there is only one petition of appeal, and this judgment is in relation to all the charges.

The facts on 2741/2003 were that on the 5th of December 2003 at about 2pm the Appellant armed himself with a cane knife and went to the Western Union Office in Suva. There, he threatened a staff member, Asivina Tuikenawa and stole various sums of money in different currencies. On 2740/03, on the 10th of December 2003, he armed himself with a cane knife and robbed the Colonial Bank of $9,570 cash after threatening violence with the cane knife. He was chased by police officers after the robbery, and he cut his own throat with the cane knife. He was rushed to the CWM Hospital where he was admitted until 14/12/03. All the money stolen was recovered.

In case 71/03, the Appellant stowed away in the ship "Captain Tasman" to New Zealand. He was deported to Fiji on 10/2/03.

These facts were admitted as were 12 previous convictions. The learned Magistrate identified the tariff for robbery with violence as being between 4 - 7 years but started at 8 years imprisonment. After giving a discount for the pleas of guilty, he took into account the fact that the Appellant was armed, committed the robberies in broad daylight and the large sums of money stolen. He sentenced the Appellant to 10 years imprisonment on the two charges of robbery with violence and in Case No. 71/03, 4 months imprisonment. All sentences are to be served concurrently.

The wide range in sentences for robbery with violence can be attributed to a wide range in the circumstances of possible offending. Robbery cases can range from aggravated “larceny from person” cases, involving for instance, a wristwatch, to serious armed robberies of banks. Robberies committed at banks and other financial institutions are considered very serious because these institutions hold other people’s money on the basis of trust and security, and because large sums of money are usually stolen in such robberies. In the circumstances, an armed robbery on a bank may well justify a higher sentence than the tariff.

In this case I consider that the 10 year total sentence was richly deserved, for the reasons listed by the learned Magistrate in his sentencing remarks. The Appellant submitted that it was excessive and that no weight had been put on his family circumstances. However, despite his family circumstances, it is impossible to ignore the undoubted trauma suffered by the bank tellers who were the victims of the robberies, or the large sum of money which was never recovered.

The 10 year sentence for each count of robbery with violence was not harsh or excessive. This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
21st May 2004