Tuimoala v The State [2004] FJHC 104; HAA0011-13j.2004b (27 May 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 11, 12 AND 13 OF 2004

Between:

APENISA TUIMOALA
Appellant

and

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms Sofia Shah for the State

JUDGMENT

There are three appeals by the appellant and I shall deal with them together.

On 31 July 1994 Apenisa Tuimoala (the appellant) was at Labasa Magistrate’s Court convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 2 years 6 months and fined $86.88 in default 70 days on various counts in three different files.

In Criminal Case No. 257/03 he was charged with the offence of office breaking entering and larceny contrary to section 300 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17 and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months.

In Criminal Case No. 260/03 he was charged on three counts, namely, unlawful use of motor vehicle, contrary to section 292 of the Penal Code, driving a motor vehicle without a driving licence contrary to section 56(b) and 87 of the Land Transport Act 1998 and driving motor vehicle in contravention of Third Party Policy Risks contrary to section 4(1)(2) of Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act, Cap. 177. On these charges he was sentenced on Count 1 – 6 months imprisonment, on Count 2 – 1 month imprisonment – concurrent to Count 1 and in Count 3 – 1 month imprisonment – concurrent to Counts 1 and 2. He was further disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. The sentences were consecutive to sentence in Criminal Case No. 257/03.

In Criminal Case No. 261/03 he was charged for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months consecutive to sentence in Criminal Case No. 257/03.

In presenting his appeal in Court he said that he pleaded guilty and most of the articles stolen have been recovered. He said that the sentences are harsh and excessive and wants the sentences reduced. He stated that although he has reconciled with his sister who is the complainant in the assault case, she has now given a statement that there is no reconciliation.

The learned counsel for the State opposes the appeal saying that the sentences are not harsh and there is no need for a reduction in sentence. He has previous convictions for offences of a similar nature.

Upon perusing the Court Record of these cases, upon hearing the appellant in person and upon hearing counsel for the State, I find that appropriate sentences were passed by the learned Magistrate on each of the counts on which the appellant was charged. As the learned Magistrate has said he has not improved despite the sentences meted out to him in the past.

I find that there is no merit in the appeals. The sentences are neither harsh and excessive nor wrong in principle.

The appeals are therefore dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Labasa
27 May, 2004