Rokisi v The State [2005] FJHC 653; HAA0004.2005L (29 June 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0004 OF 2005L

SOLOMONI ROKISI

v

THE STATE

Date of Hearing/Date of Ruling: 29 June 2005

Appellant in Person
Counsel for the State: Mr. K. Tunidau

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

The appellant was charged with two counts of Robbery with Violence, two counts of Damaging Property, one count of Throwing Object and one count of Resisting Arrest. He pleaded guilty to all matters and was dealt with at Sigatoka Magistrates Court. Charges against the appellant are read as follows:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

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

Particulars of Offence

SOLOMONI ROKISI on the 5^th day of July 2004 at Tagaqe, Sigatoka in the Western Division, being armed with a cane knife, robbed one ESEROMA VULA of a wrist watch valued at $65.00, the property owned by the said ESEROMA VULA and that at the time of such robbery did use personal violence on ESEROMA VULA, a security guard employed with the Hideaway Resort.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

DAMAGING PROPERTY: Contrary to section 324 (1) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

SOLOMONI ROKISI on the 5^th day of July 2004 at Tagaqe, Sigatoka in the Western Division, wilfully and unlawfully damaged two (2) lamp shades valued at $600.00 and a coding machine wire valued at $200.00, all to the total value of $800.00, the property owned by Hideaway Resort.

THIRD COUNT

Statement of Offence

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

Particulars of Offence

SOLOMONI ROKISI, JOAPE TOVATOVA, with others on the 5^th day of July 2004 at Tagaqe, Sigatoka in the Western Division, being armed with a cane knife, robbed Hideaway Resort of an Automatic Teller Machine valued at $100,000.00 and cash in the amount of $146,870.00, all to the total value of $246,870.00, the property of the Australian and New Zealand Banking Corporation, and that at the time of such robbery did threat and use personal violence on one ESEROMA VULA, a security guard employed with the Hideaway Resort.

FOURTH COUNT

Statement of Offence

THROWING OBJECT: Contrary to section 105 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

SOLOMONI ROKISI with others on the 5^th day of July 2004 at Colova, Sigatoka in the Western Division, wilfully and unlawfully threw stones at a Fiji Police Vehicle Registration Number GN 151.

FIFTH COUNT

Statement of Offence

DAMAGING PROPERTY: Contrary to section 324 (1) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

SOLOMONI ROKISI on the 5^th day of July 2004 at Colova, Sigatoka in the Western Division, wilfully and unlawfully damaged the front left tyre of a Police Vehicle Registration Number GN 151, the property of the Fiji Police Force.

The facts as presented to the Learned Magistrate and accepted by the appellant are that on the 5^th day of July 2004 between 0230 hours and 0247 hours at Tagaqe, Sigatoka at the Hideaway Resort, the appellant, 34 years old, unemployed of Namoli Village, Lautoka with 6 others arrived in a stolen Mazda Twin Cab vehicle registration number DO 819. Upon arriving at the Hideaway Resort, they parked the vehicle at the hotel lobby where the appellant entered the reception and threatened a security officer on duty, namely, Eseroma Vula, by brandishing

a cane knife at him and uttering words to the effect that if Mr. Vula were to do anything, the accused was going to chop him. The accused then forced the said Mr. Vula to lay face down on the concrete floor of the reception area, hindering him from witnessing the alleged robbery to take place. At that point, the accused stole and took away a wristwatch valued at $65.00 from Mr. Vula’s possession. Mr. Vula did not sustain any serious injury on himself apart from trauma and shock.

Whilst this occurred all other accused dispersed from the stolen vehicle and tied the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) located in the lobby area of the Hideaway Resort, with three and two inches thick cable wire with a length of approximately 12 feet and pulled the ATM machine from its original location and loaded it in the stolen vehicle.

Having loaded the ATM machine into the back of the stolen vehicle, the appellant and his accomplices got into the vehicle and travelled along the Queens Highway towards Suva. Along Colova, upon being chased by the Fiji Police vehicle registration number GN 151, the appellant threw stones at the police vehicle which were not successful. However, the appellant also threw metal spikes on the road which resulted in the police vehicle front left tyre being damaged in the process.

Upon proceeding towards Navua, the appellant’s vehicle entered Nabukelevu Road. About 4 kilometres along that road, the appellant dumped the ATM machine in the bushes and retreated in the stolen vehicle towards Navua. When reaching Nakorovou area, the appellant and his accomplices abandoned the stolen vehicle and disappeared.

The ATM machine was ultimately found by the police on the 6^th July 2004. The machine on being located had the cash intact inside.

The appellant was arrested when he and others returned on the 7^th July 2004 to the scene where the ATM machine had been dumped.

The accused on being interviewed by the police admitted his part in the commission of the offences and he maintained that admission when he entered a plea of guilty when the matter came before the Learned Magistrate at Sigatoka Magistrates Court.

State Counsel has referred the court to the decision of the Fiji Court of Appeal in Raymond Sikeli Singh & Others v The State – Criminal Appeal No. AAU0008 of 2000S. The court there considered what was said in the New Zealand decisions of R v Moananui [1983] NZCA 66; [1983] NZLR 537 and R v Mako [2002] 2 NZLR 170 and said:

“The court gave some views as to the weight which was appropriate to place on certain factors and suggested what it referred to as “starting points”. The Court noted that for arriving at a starting point a combination of factors is significant and for the purposes of this case it is enough to say the Court held that starting points for serious armed robbery of commercial premises start at 6 or more years. Where there is a greater risk of harm or actual violence is used the starting point was said to be 8 years or more. The Court noted that in the case of very serious armed robberies, a starting point of about 10 years would be appropriate. Starting points are no more than that. The appropriate penalty must depend upon the impact of the significant factors in the case.”

When one applies the principles as is expressed there by the Fiji Court of Appeal to this appeal and to the facts as they have been admitted by the appellant and found by the Learned Magistrate, it seems to me that an appropriate starting point is 10 years. This was a very serious armed robbery. Violence was used. The perpetrators including the appellant were armed with knives, bars and the like and they stole an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) which had a significant value and which contained a large amount of cash, it is fortunate that the machine was not able to be opened and cash was recovered.

The aggravating factors, which necessitate an additional term being added to the starting point, are the weapons carried by the appellant and his accomplices. The amount of money taken and the value of the items stolen and the actual violence used in the course of the commission of the offence, these factors in my opinion necessitate an additional term of 2 years being added to the starting point.

As I have indicated the appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. He admitted the offence when interviewed by the police and for this, he is entitled to a discount. The accepted discount is one-third and in the circumstances of the facts of this matter, there is nothing to suggest that anything less than that one-third discount should be given to the appellant. That will reduce the sentence to a term of 8 years with respect to the third and most serious count.

The Learned Magistrate in imposing sentences upon the accused for the various counts, imposed a sentence of 2 years with respect of the first count (robbery with violence) and 6 years with respect of the third count (robbery with violence) and made those two sentences consecutive. It is apparent from the facts that all of the offences with which the appellant was charged were committed in the course of one event and as such, it is inappropriate for consecutive sentences to be imposed.

I see no reason to interfere with the sentences imposed by the Learned Magistrate with respect to the first, second, fourth and fifth count, however I do see a need to vary the sentence imposed with respect to the third count for the reasons stated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the sentences of the Learned Magistrate with respect to the first, second, fourth and fifth count are confirmed. I vary the sentence with respect to the third count by imposing a sentence of 8 years imprisonment and I vary the orders of the Learned Magistrate and direct that all sentences are to be served concurrently.

John Connors
JUDGE

At Lautoka
29 June 2005