Shameem v The State [2005] FJHC 339; HAA00166.2005L (18 November 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0166 OF 2005L

MOHAMMED SHAMEEM
f/n Mohammed Farook

v.

THE STATE

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Qica for the State

Date of Hearing: 18 November 2005
Date of Ruling: 18 November 2005

EXTEMPORE RULING ON APPEAL

This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant having pleaded guilty was convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on the 29^th October 2004.

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to section 293 (1) (b) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

MOHAMMED SHAMEEM s/o Mohammed Farook and some others on the 20^th day of October 2004, at Martinitar, Nadi in the Western Division robbed MARK RICHTER of cash 7,500 Euros, 1 pair of binoculars valued 100 Euros and 1 pair of red shoes valued at 100 Euros all to the total value of 7,700 Euros the property of MARK RICHTER and at the time of such robbery did use personal violence on the said MARK RICHTER.

The facts as presented at Magistrates Court are that on the night of the 20th October 2004 at about 1830 hours at Regg Street, Martintar, Mark Richter aged 31 years a technician of Drebach, Germany was assaulted and robbed of the items mentioned in the charge.

The complainant was walking along Regg Street when he was called to join others for drinking. They drank 18 bottles of Fiji Beer and one bottle of black label whisky. When the drinks finished, Mark Richter stood up to go back to the Dominion Hotel where he was staying and that was when the others started to assault him and he fell down to the ground and they robbed him of his items. They loaded him into a taxi and sent him back to the hotel. The matter was reported to the police. The appellant was arrested and charged.

To the appellant’s credit when he came before the Nadi Magistrates Court on the 29^th October 2004 he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

The appellant submitted to the Magistrate that he was 24 years of age, he was unemployed and that he and the others needed money and that was the reason the offence was committed.

The appellant now tells the Court that having been in prison he has learnt the error of his ways and has come to realize the foolishness of his past behaviour. His submissions in that regard are supported by the officer in charge of the Pre-Release Centre who also submits to the Court the change which has occurred in the appellant during the period of his imprisonment.

It is submitted on behalf of the State and I concur that the tariff for robbery with violence of this type is 4 to 7 years. In this instance, the victim was injured and the victim was a tourist. I consider both of these matters to be aggravating factors.

The appellant’s early plea of guilty is indeed a significant mitigation for which he should be given credit.

The Learned Magistrate in his sentencing remarks noted that the victim has suffered injuries. He noted that the assault was totally unprovoked and also noted that he was giving credit for the early plea of guilty.

As I have indicated the tariff falls within the range of 4 to 7 years if one takes account of the aggravating factors to which I have referred as the Magistrate did and then gives appropriate credit for the early plea of guilty, it becomes apparent the sentence of 4 years imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate is not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
18 November 2005