Waqa v The State [2004] FJHC 488; HAA0101.2004L (22 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0101 OF 2004L

PENISONI WAQA
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in person
Mr. S. Qica for the respondent.

Hearing & Ruling: 22 October 2004

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the Learned Magistrate at Tavua and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on the 8^th June 2004 with respect to the following offence:

Statement of Offence

LARCENY: Contrary to section 259 and 262 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

PENISONI WAQA, on the 26^th day of May 2003, at Tavua in the Western Division, stole two billy goats valued at $200.00, the property of SADA SIWAN s/o Subarmani.

The facts as found by the Learned Magistrate were that the appellant went to his sister on the 26^th May 2003 asking if she and her husband were selling goats. The sister told the appellant that her husband was away. The appellant should come and ask him. Instead of waiting, the appellant took two goats without the consent of the sister and walked away. She asked the appellant to stop but he disappeared with the goats.

Sada Siwan stated that his wife reported to him what the accused had done and he reported the matter to the police. Later the police found the goats and they were identified.

The appellant had sold one of the goats for $70.00.

In sentencing the appellant, the Learned Magistrate took into account the mitigating factors placed before him by the appellant, that is, he is married with 2 young children, he is 26 years of age and he also took into account the appellant’s prior record which contains 7 prior matters for dishonesty.

I have been referred to Jone Naca v The State – HAA0016 of 2002S where Madam Justice Shameem considered the penalties and starting applicable for cattle theft. Whilst the appellant is charged not under section 275 and section 259, the principles to nonetheless apply to the larceny of these animals.

In that matter, after considering various authorities, Her Ladyship concluded that an appropriate starting point was 18 months imprisonment. It is submitted and I agree that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances before the Learned Magistrate balanced each other out.

There is therefore nothing before me that would suggest that the sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
22 October 2004