Lesuma v The State [2004] FJHC 490; HAA0106.2004L (22 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0106 OF 2004L

MANASA LESUMA
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

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

Hearing & Ruling: 22 October 2004

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against sentence.

The appellant was convicted following his plea of guilty before the Tavua Magistrates Court on the 20^th July 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

MANASA LESUMA, on the 12^th day of Jul 2004, at Tavua in the Western Division, stole a “Ricoh” brand camera valued at $550.00, the property of the Fiji Police Force.

Following conviction, the appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served consecutive to his remaining term.

The facts as presented to the Learned Magistrate and as accepted by the appellant were that on the 12^th July 2004 between 8.00am and 9.30am at Tavua Police Station, the accused whilst working an extra mural prisoner at the Tavua Police Station stole the station camera valued at $550.00, the property of the Fiji Police Force.

The accused was working at the station on the abovementioned date and time and was asked by the Crime Officer to clean his office. The Crime Officer was attending the morning conference and the accused was alone in the office.

On the 13^th July 2004 the camera was discovered missing. The accused was questioned and he admitted taking the camera. The accused later returned the camera which he had kept at his home. The accused was arrested, interviewed under caution and admitted taking the camera.

Mitigation before the Learned Magistrate included that the accused is 27 years of age, unemployed and married with 1 child. He was previously sentenced to 2 years jail and is now an extra mural prisoner. His record shows that he has 4 prior convictions for larceny, 2 counts of resisting arrest and escaping from lawful custody.

The magistrate in his sentencing remarks used as a starting point, 3 years. He took into account the mitigating factors to which I have referred and the aggravation of the camera having been stolen from the Police Station in broad daylight.

I see nothing before me that would suggest that the sentence of 18 months imposed by the Learned Magistrate is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, the appeal is dismissed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
22 October 2004