Ratabua v The State [2004] FJHC 90; HAA0026J.2004S (8 April 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0026 OF 2004S

Between:

MESAKE RATABUA
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 2nd April 2004
Judgment: 8th April 2004

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Qica for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was charged with the following offences:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

BURGLARY: Contrary to section 299(a) of the Penal Code Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

MESAKE RATABUA, on the 25th day of December, 2003 at Nasinu in the Central Division, by night broke and entered the dwelling house of VIKA WARA with intent to commit a felony therein namely to steal.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

LARCENY IN DWELLING HOUSE OF PROPERTY VALUE AMOUNTING TO NOT LESS THAN TEN DOLLARS: Contrary to section 270 (a) of the Penal Code Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

MESAKE RATABUA, on the 25th day of December, 2003 at Nasinu in the Central Division, stole in the dwelling house of VIKA WARA chattel sony deck valued $400.00, radio cassette valued $129.00, 1 mat valued $200.00, tapa valued $100.00, bag valued $45.00, 1 pair boot valued $40.00 a value amounting to not less than ten dollars, the property of VIKA WARA to the total value of $914.00.

He pleaded guilty on the 23rd of January. The facts were that on the 25th of December 2003 while the complainant was away, the Appellant broke into the house by removing three louvre blades and stole the items specified in the charges. While climbing out of the window with the stolen items, he was spotted by a member of the public who reported the matter to the police. The Appellant was arrested and interviewed. He admitted all the offences. All the stolen items were recovered.

The Appellant admitted 9 previous convictions for similar offences, dating from 1989. In mitigation he said that all the items had been recovered, that he looked after his parents and wife and that he was unemployed. He expressed remorse.

The learned Magistrate sentenced him to 2 years imprisonment after taking into account the planning and the mitigating circumstances.

The Appellant appeals against this sentence, on the grounds that other offenders have been given 9 month terms for similar offences, that inadequate weight was put on his plea of guilty and remorse, and that all the items had been recovered. The State opposes the appeal, saying that the sentence was well within the tariff and that the Appellant was a habitual offender.

In Tomasi Turuturuvesi v. State Crim. App. HAA0086.2002S, I said that the tariff for house-breaking entering and larceny was between 18 months to 3 years imprisonment, the question of suspension being reserved for the young first offender.

In this case the Appellant was not a first offender, and before embarking on the offence, appeared to spare no thoughts for the welfare of his family. The 2 year term was correct in principle, the Magistrate took into account all relevant factors, and I see no reason to reduce the term.

Indeed his list of previous convictions suggests that he has made no attempt to rehabilitate himself. Instead he continues to offend, causing distress and inconvenience to the members of the public whose houses he chooses to violate.

This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
8th April 2004