Tuvakasuka v The State [2004] FJHC 462; HAA0085.2004L (17 September 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0085 OF 2004L

JONE TUVAKASUKA

V

THE STATE

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Qica for the State

RULING

The appellant in this matter was dealt with by the Magistrates Court, Rakiraki on the 28^th April 2004 and was convicted of the offence of robbery with violence and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months. The appellant appeals against the sentence.

In support of the appeal against sentence, the appellant says that he pleaded guilty on the basis that the prosecutor informed him that he would receive a suspended sentence and that the matter had been before the Magistrates Court for a period of 3 years. He says he was effectively tricked into pleading guilty, he never expected to go to jail for 12 months. He further says and it is borne out by the court record that he has in fact served almost 5 months of his sentence.

I understand that when 6 months of his sentence remains to be served, he would have the right to make application to prison authorities to be treated as an extramural prisoner. The decision of course with respect to that rests with the prison authorities.

The State submits that the Learned Magistrate in adopting a starting point of 5 years imprisonment, acted inappropriately but that the Magistrate in reducing that to a period of 12 months imprisonment, acted extremely leniently. With that I agree.

The offence of robbery with violence are far too prevalent to the point where the memorandum from the Chief Justice to which the State referred to was issued late last year. Whilst that memorandum is certainly not binding on the court, it expresses the view of the Chief Justice and of society with respect to the punishment that should be metered out for offences of this type.

This court when dealing with appeals from Magistrates Court, by virtue of the authorities, should only interfere with the sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate in limited circumstances, that is, when it is manifestly wrong.

I am of the opinion, the starting point used by the Learned Magistrate was indeed appropriate and that the ultimate sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate was certainly not excessive and certainly is not such, as would warrant interference from this court and for these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
17 September 2004