Bavoro v The State [2006] FJHC 7; HAA0147.2005S (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Crim. App. No: HAA0147 of 2005S

Between:

MAIKA BAVORO
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 20th January 2006
Judgment: 9th February 2006

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Ms L. Lagilevu for State

JUDGMENT

This appeal must be allowed. The Appellant was charged on two counts of escaping from lawful custody. He was a serving prisoner and escaped from custody on the 3^rd of August 2005. He was recaptured on the 18^th of September 2005. He escaped again on the same day, and was recaptured, also on the same day. He pleaded guilty on the 19^th of September 2005 and admitted the facts, which were that he escaped from the police cell at Government Buildings by taking advantage of the police escorting another prisoner to the toilet.

He had 17 previous convictions none of which was for escaping. In mitigation, he said he was 29 years old, single, and employed as a labourer. He said that he escaped to visit his family.

The sentencing remarks read: “Sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each of the two counts. To serve consecutively since the offences were committed on different dates.”

On appeal, the Appellant said that the total sentence was harsh and excessive and that it exceeded the tariff of 4 to 6 months.

State counsel agreed. She referred to the judgment of Tuivaga CJ in Isireli Rokovucago v. Reginam in which the tariff for offences of escaping was held to be six to twelve months. She also referred to the decisions of this court in Jeremaia Donu and Ilikena Bula v. The State HAA0043 of 2001S, and Nemani Kaverevere v. The State HAM0016 of 2003S in which longer terms had been reduced from offences of escaping. State counsel agreed that the sentence should be reduced on each count accordingly.

The individual sentences are not wrong in principle but the total sentence, of 18 months imprisonment is excessive. I order that the sentences be instead served concurrently to each other, but consecutive to the Appellant’s existing term of imprisonment. In effect, his sentence will be lengthened by 9 months. This appeal is allowed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
9^th February 2006