PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2005 >> [2005] FJHC 199

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Jitoko v The State [2005] FJHC 199; HAM0043D.2005S (25 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION


Crim. Misc. Case No: HAM0043 of 2005S


Between:


ASIVOROSI JITOKO
Applicant


And:


THE STATE
Respondent


Hearing: 21st July 2005
Ruling: 25th July 2005


Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr. A. Ravindra-Singh for State


BAIL RULING


The Applicant applies for bail pending appeal. He is 17 years old, and was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment on the 19th of April 2005. His appeal record has not yet been sent to the High Court for a hearing date to be set.


He applies for bail on the grounds that he wants to go back to school (at Lami High School), that prison conditions are harsh and that his mitigation was not heard before sentence was delivered.


The court files sent to the High Court show that the Applicant was in fact given probation orders for 3 separate offences of shop-breaking entering and larceny. His father was bound in the sum of $500 to ensure that his son observed all conditions of the probation order. The Applicant was to return to school and refrain from re-offending. He was to attend interviews and counselling sessions at the Social Welfare Department. Neither the Applicant nor his father observed the conditions of his probation orders. The learned Magistrate then cancelled the orders and sentenced him to 12 months, 9 months and 9 months imprisonment, on each of the 3 files. These sentences are to run concurrently with each other, but consecutive to the sentence passed in yet another case. His total term is 30 months imprisonment.


The sentencing remarks of the learned Magistrate are well-reasoned and clear. There is no obvious merit in this appeal although there is of course an arguable appeal against a custodial sentence for a first offender. The appeal is likely to be heard before September and the Applicant will not have spent a substantial portion of his sentence, when the appeal is heard.


In these circumstances, this application is refused.


Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE


At Suva
25th July 2005


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2005/199.html