Sugunavanua v The State [2004] FJHC 471; HAA0084.2004L (1 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0084 OF 2004L

TIMOCI SUGUNAVANUA
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. M. Korovou for the Respondent

Hearing & Ruling: 1 October 2004

EXTEMPORE RULING

The appellant was on the 15^th of March 2004 convicted at the Sigatoka Magistrates Court for burglary and larceny in a dwelling house for which he was sentenced by the Learned Magistrate to 2 years imprisonment. The details of the offence are:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

BURGLARY: Contrary to section 299(a)(b)(i)(ii) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

TIMOCI SUGUNAVANUA, on the 1^st day of February 2004 at Namada, Sigatoka in the Western Division, did break and enter the dwelling house of JAMES FLIGHT, with intent to steal and did steal therein a brief case valued at $40.00 and vodafone charge valued at $25.00, all to the total value of $65.00, the property of the said JAMES FLIGHT.

COUNT TWO

Statement of Offence

LARCENY IN DWELLING HOUSE: Contrary to section 270 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

TOMASI SUGUNAVANUA, on the 1^st day of February 2004 at Namada, Sigatoka in the Western Division, stole from the dwelling house of JAMES FLIGHT, brief case valued at $40.00 and a vodafone charger valued at $25.00, all to the total value of $65.00, the property of the said JAMES FLIGHT.

The facts as presented to the magistrate were that the complainant is from Sydney and has a house at Sigatoka. That on the 1^st February 2004 at 8.00pm the appellant went to the complainant’s house. The complainant took all his belongings to the house into the sitting room. He kept them there. He left the door open. He went to the uncle’s compound. That 15 minutes later the complainant returned. While sorting out the items, he found 2 items were missing. It was reported, enquiries were conducted and the accused was arrested and admitted the offence.

The appellant told the Learned Magistrate that he is 20 years of age, he is single and a farmer. When asked why he committed the offence he had no answer.

The appellant appeals against the sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate. In his sentencing remarks, the Learned Magistrate has taken account of the guilty plea, the facts that only the telephone charger was recovered and the appellant’s antecedents which show that he has 2 prior convictions for larceny in 2003.

The Learned Magistrate determined the tariff for the offences of this type was between 3 and 7 years.

I have been referred to Saula Vunivesi and The State – HAA0048 of 2002 where it is said that the tariff for house breaking offences range from a very short term of imprisonment for young first offenders, who might have played the marginal role to 3 to 4 year term for habitual offenders, who steal items of high value.

I have also been referred to Josua Domonalagi and The State – HAA0094 of 2002L where His Lordship, Mr. Justice Govind imposed the periods of 4 ½ years imprisonment and 3 ½ years imprisonment for burglary and larceny from a dwelling house.

Clearly in the circumstances, the penalty imposed by the Learned Magistrate of 2 years imprisonment, is within the range and certainly is not such as would justify or for that matter enable this court to interfere with it.

The appeal is dismissed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
1 October 2004