Williams v The State [2005] FJHC 62; HAA0014J.2005S (23 March 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal Nos. HAA0014 – 015 of 2005S

Between:

JERRY WILLIAMS
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 18th March 2005
Judgment: 23rd March 2005

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Ms V. Lidise for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellant appeals against a total sentence of 5 years and 40 days imprisonment, in respect of two court files, Case No. 2930/04 and 2296/04. In 2930 he was charged with robbery with violence. In 2296 he was charged with larceny from person. He appeals on the grounds that the sentences are wrong in principle, harsh and excessive, and that they failed to reflect his early guilty plea.

In Case No. 2296 the Appellant pleaded guilty on the 27th of September 2004. The facts were that on the 25th of September at 8am, the victim who lived in a squatter settlement in Narere, was walking along a road with her two year old son, when the Appellant snatched at her handbag. He ran away. She reported the matter to the police and the Appellant was arrested. He admitted the offence and the handbag with some clothes in it, was recovered. The Appellant admitted these facts and two previous convictions, for burglary.

In Case No. 2930, the facts were that on the 17th of December 2004 a 69 year old woman, Kamla Vai, got off a bus and walked towards a relative’s house. The Appellant came behind her. He grabbed her handbag and pulled it punching the victim’s face in the process. She fell on the road. The Appellant took her handbag, a purse and $80 cash, and ran away. The victim was treated in hospital for her injuries. The Appellant was apprehended and interviewed. He admitted the offence. The stolen items were recovered.

In mitigation, the Appellant said he was 26 years old and single. He said he looked after his mother after the death of his father. The learned Magistrate started a 4 years imprisonment, added 2 years for the vulnerability of the victim and her injuries. He deducted one year for the guilty plea and arrived at 5 years imprisonment. In Case file 2296/2004 he noted that on the 27th of September 2004, he had been bound over in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour, for the offence of larceny from person. Because he had re-offended whilst on bound over, he was to forfeit $200, and to be sentenced to 40 days imprisonment. It appears that both sentences are to be served consecutively.

The Appellant says that the total sentence is excessive. State counsel says that the sentences imposed are correct in principle and within the tariff. I agree. In Raymond Sikeli Singh and Others v. The State Crim. App. AAU0008 of 2000S, the Court of Appeal considered sentences imposed in a robbery with violence involving $74,000 from a bank. In that case, the Court said (at page 8):

“The consequences of behaviour of this kind need to be borne in mind. It is for this reason that where robberies accompanied with violence or threats of violence occur in public places where members of the public can be expected to be found and may well be disturbed or placed at risk by such behaviour, then that is a factor which significantly increases the severity of an appropriate response.”

This case is not as serious as a planned bank robbery committed in a gang. For that reason, the learned Magistrate was quite correct to start at the lowest end of the tariff. However, the attack on an elderly member of the community and the use of violence which led to her hospitalisation, were aggravating factors which quite rightly led to a significant increase. The Appellant’s guilty plea was taken into account, but there was no other real mitigating factor, other than his co-operation with the police.

The 5 year term is right in principle. The 40 day term of imprisonment imposed for the larceny in Case 2296 of 2004 is similarly correct in principle. In that case also, the Appellant chose a vulnerable person to steal from.

For these reasons, the appeal is wholly dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
23rd March 2005