Rokonabete v The State [2005] FJHC 156; HAA0028 & 0038.2005 (29 June 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO.: HAA0028 & 38 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SAKIUSA ROKONABETE
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Appellant – In Person
Mr. A. Ravindra-Singh – for State

Date of Hearing & Judgement: 29th June, 2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This is an extempore judgment and as such I reserve the right to recall and perfect it as I see necessary.

Background

There are two appeals on different charges before me. In Appeal 38 of 2005 the appellant faced one charge of robbery with violence. After trial he was convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. In Appeal 28 of 2005 the appellant faced two charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment concurrent as between the charges but consecutive on the serving term.

Particulars

In Appeal 38 of 2005 the appellant and three others armed with iron bars invaded the victim’s home. They threatened the 59 year old man and his 54 year old wife, demanded money and ransacked their house. When interviewed the appellant in some careful detail admitted the offending. At appeal this morning he confirmed that when he was before the learned Magistrate he was advised of his rights to counsel but elected to represent himself. The record reflects that he cross-examined witness, complained about the admissibility of his confession, as he said it was beaten out of him, and made an otherwise unsworn statement.

The learned Magistrate considered the confession found that it was fairly obtained without inducement or duress and largely upon its content convicted the appellant. The appeal is against conviction and sentence.

In Appeal 28 of 2005 the appellant and others on the 12th of February 2000 beat, punched and kicked the complainants to the ground and then took turns in kicking and punching them where they lay.

Again this morning the appellant confirmed he elected to represent himself at his Magistrate Court sentencing. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a 6 month term of imprisonment concurrent as between each of the charges but consecutive on the serving term. He appeals against that sentence.

The Appeals

HAA 38/2005

The appellant filed written grounds and submissions. He explained in 38/2005 that he was not represented at the hearing but confirmed that this was his choice.

He disagreed with the learned Magistrate’s decision on admissibility of his confessional statement but could point to no error of law in that regard rather he believed that the exercise of discretion to admit was wrong. He further submitted that convicting him on the uncorroborated confession and charge statements was an error of law.

Largely in reliance on this last point he submits a sentence of 7 years imprisonment is irrelevant and in the alternate asked that the sentence be reduced.

He made but abandoned an appeal ground that he was denied a right to legal representation and thereby he did not have a fair trial.

Decision – HAA 38 of 2005

In my view the confessional statement was accurately considered by the learned Magistrate in his judgment. The learned Magistrate observed and I agree that the claim to these admissions being beaten out of this accused is unbelievable. The confession and charging statements are too detailed as to time, place, circumstance, lay out, disposal of the stolen items and details of accomplices for the interviewing officer to have manufactured them. The appellant could point to no error of law in the admissibility of the confession and the charging statement. Accordingly this ground is rejected.

As for the complaint that this admitted statement required corroboration before conviction I reject that proposition. First it is quite legitimate for an accused to be convicted on a confession alone.

Second although not able to identify the accused the Prosecution witnesses evidence tallied with the content of the confession and charging statements and thereby fortified the credibility of the Prosecution case. I dismiss the conviction appeal.

Sentence

When making a sentence appeal an appellant must demonstrate that the sentence was wrong in principle of law and manifestly excessive before this court will reduce the overall term of imprisonment.

A 7 year sentence for offending with these features is unremarkable. Home invasions are a particularly traumatic invasion into the lives of citizens. The most striking feature of these episodes is the sheer terror to its victims. They are set upon within the apparent safety of a private dwelling by complete strangers. These unjustified acts of terrorism by intruders within the home invade the family sanctuary and violate the sense of security that lies at the heart of a home. As such these acts not only affect the lives of their immediate victims but also instil fear in the local community creating a siege like mentality.

Entry into dwellings at night and assaults upon occupants must draw stern sentences to reflect society’s attitude to such conduct. In sentencing offenders for home invasion the courts have always recognized the sanctity of the home and have insisted that violence occurring in a person’s house is to be treated as an extremely aggravating feature calling for a higher starting point and overall a higher sentence of imprisonment. At the very least these victims in society deserve the small comfort of knowing that while incarcerated home invaders are not free to ply their miserable trade.

Home invasions by multiple accused armed with weapons attacking their victims at night deserve a starting point of between 6 to 8 years imprisonment. I emphasize this is only a starting point and the ultimate penalty will need to be adjusted by the application of appropriate aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In my view there is little apart from his youth to mitigate the penalty for this appellant. There are several aggravating features. These include:

• The age of the victims , 59 and 54
• The fact that the accused were armed with iron bars
• The limited amount of property recovered
• The fact that there were multiple accused
  

There was little meritorious mitigation. The learned Magistrate’s sentence was well balanced and fair. It was certainly not wrong in principle or at law. It certainly could not be considered as manifestly excessive. The sentence appeal on 38 of 2005 is dismissed.

Decision on 028 of 2005

In my view this sentence appeal lacks any merit whatsoever. The learned Magistrate was entitled to impose a consecutive penalty for this separate offending.

A group putting down and then severely punching and kicking a victim on the ground is acting in a cowardly and shameful way.

Despite your youth you have an unenviable record. There is little to be said in mitigation for you. There is much that can be said to aggravate any penalty that the court might consider imposing upon you. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of trust and incapable of living a productive life within the community. If anything in my view a sentence of 6 months imprisonment in respect of this offending was lenient. The fact that the 6 months imprisonment was held to be concurrent as between each charge but consecutive on the serving term was unremarkable. Your sentence appeal in 028 of 2005 is dismissed.

Conclusion

The appeal against conviction and sentence in 038 of 2005 is dismissed. The appeal against sentence in 028 of 2005 is dismissed.

Gerard Winter
JUDGE

At Suva
29th June, 2005