Navuda v The State - judgment 2 [2005] FJHC 462; HAA0073J.2005S (30 September 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Crim. App. No: HAA0073 of 2005S

Between:

LUKE NAVUDA;
JOSEVA TUKANA;
SEVANAIA DONU;
SAIMONI LOGA;
FILIPE WILIKIBAU; and
APOROSA TUITOKOVA
Appellants

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 16th September 2005
Judgment: 30th September 2005

Counsel: Ms B. Malimali for Appellants
Mr. A. Rayawa for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellants appeal against conviction on one count of throwing object and one count (for the 3^rd Appellant) of Arson. It was alleged that on the 1^st of March 2005 at Malawai, Gau, they wilfully threw stones at the house of Laisenia Bale and that the 3^rd Appellant wilfully and unlawfully set fire to the house of Laisenia Bale.

As in HAA0067 of 2005 and HAA0070 of 2005, the case was first called on the 8^th of March. The charges were read and explained and they were understood. The Appellants said they admitted the charges of their own free will. The matter was adjourned to the 11^th of March, when all Appellants were asked again if they pleaded guilty and if anyone had forced them to plea. They said that no one had. The facts were read. They were that between 1am and 2am on the 1^st of March 2005, the Appellants were drinking a bucket of homebrew. They then went to the victim’s house. The victim was asleep with a friend and his family. The Appellants began to throw stones at the house causing damage to the windows and the interior. The 4^th Appellant then set fire to the house by lighting a window curtain. The victim and his family managed to put the fire out. The Appellants apparently believed that the victim was a witchdoctor and that he also claimed to be the holder of a chiefly title. The victim’s family took shelter with neighbours and the Appellant then left. The matter was reported to the police by the turaga-ni-koro. Under caution the Appellants admitted the offences.

These facts were admitted. The Appellants (except for the 5^th Appellant) were first offenders. The 5^th Appellant had one previous conviction in 2002 for shopbreaking entering and larceny. In mitigation, the 1^st Appellant said that he was 20 years old and only educated up to Class 8. He expressed remorse and said he would not re-offend. The 2^nd appellant said he was 19 years old and educated up to Form 4. He also expressed remorse. The 3^rd Appellant was 17 years old and educated up to Form 5. He expressed remorse and promised not to re-offend. The 4^th Appellant was 17 years old and expressed remorse. The 5^th Appellant was 22 years old and educated up to Form 3. He asked for forgiveness. The 6^th Appellant was 19 years old and educated up to Form 3.

Sentence was delivered on the 14^th of April 2005. The learned Magistrate said that after taking the aggravating and mitigating factors into account, the Appellants were sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment on Count 1, and for the 4^th Appellant, to 5 years imprisonment on Count 2.

The Appellants now appeal against conviction saying that their pleas were not unequivocal. Their counsel points to their lack of representation, their lack of familiarity with the court system, their lack of understanding of the charges and the elements of the offence, and their allegations of police pressure.

For the same reasons I have given in their other two appeals (HAA0067 of 2005 and HAA0070 of 2005) I am not persuaded that the convictions should be set aside. The Court record shows that the Appellants were told of the nature of the charges. They were asked if there was any pressure put on them to plead guilty. They were asked if they understood the charges. The sentencing hearing was adjourned to another day so the Appellants had ample time to reconsider their positions. They did not do so. They maintained their pleas. The facts disclose both offences and the pleas were unequivocal.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed. I will now hear appeal against sentence.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
30th September 2005