State v Racule [2007] FJHC 15; HAC43.2004 (11 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 43 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

URAIA RACULE

Counsel: Mr. A. Rayawa – for the State
Ms. S. Vaniqi - for the Accused

Date of Hearing & Sentence: 11 May, 2007

SENTENCE

Facts

[1] Uraia Racule together with two others you decided to carry out a home invasion.

[2] On the 26th November 2005 around midday the three of you raided the farm house. You were all armed. Two of you had thick long batons freshly cut from the branches of an African tulip tree. The third robber carried a knife.

[3] Once inside the house your associates beat up and robbed Lum Moon Woot while you attacked his sleeping younger brother Lin Quan Chi. You hit him twice in the face with your tree baton, stole some money and ran away.

[4] Such was the force of your blows that you knocked out the deceased’s front tooth. The Doctor who attended the deceased was unable to intubate the patient because the bone structure of his face had been shattered by the force of the blows you struck. The Doctor said in evidence that the deceased’s face crumbled when she tried to gain some stability about the jaw to insert the tube.

[5] You are 23 years old.

[6] You have no previous convictions

[7] You have had an impoverished upbringing and little education.

[8] I accept that from the outset of this investigation you have been prepared to plead guilty to the offence of manslaughter. For that reason I accept you have genuine remorse for your actions.

[9] I acknowledge the actual impact this crime has had on the deceased’s family. Their sense of loss and grief, anger and hurt is recognized by the court and unreservedly accepted.

Manslaughter

[9] Sentences for manslaughter vary widely depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Penalties range from suspended sentences to 12 years imprisonment. Sentences in the upper range are required where the degree of violence is high and provocation minimal. Sentences at the lower end of the scale are reserved for those cases where the violence used is minimal and the provocation offered grave (cf Rauve v The State, Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1990, The State v Kacivaki, Suva High Court sentencing Criminal Action No.38 of 1997, Devi v The State, Suva High Court Criminal Action No.1 of 2001 and The State v Buli, Suva High Court Criminal Action No.9 of 1999).

[10] The English Court of Appeal in R v Byrne Field and Cuthbert [2009] EWCA Crim 1096; [2002] 1 Cr. App. R(s) 33 in relation to ‘sentencing in cases of manslaughter’ said that the following factors were relevant:

1. The conduct causing death;
2. The public concern and the need for deterrence;
3. Whether there was an intent to do violence; and
4. Any risk, apparent to those involved, of serious harm being caused.
   

Consideration.

[11] This was completely reprehensible conduct. Driven by greed and spite you planned and then set about to rob these hardworking folk. In the process of that crime you intended violence. You hit this man twice in the face with a heavy wooden baton. You crushed his face and killed him. This is conduct at the upper end of the sentencing scale and I fix a starting point of 9 years jail.

[12] The crime is aggravated by the use of a weapon, premeditation and the public concern at home invasion. I add another 4 years to reflect those aggravating features. This leaves an aggravated total of 13 years imprisonment.

[13] In mitigation, I accept that a significant discount must be given for your cooperation with the police and early acceptance of responsibility for this homicide. I accept you have remorse for your actions that was underscored by your attitude to the offending and trial procedure. You are young, with no previous convictions.

[14] For these mitigating features I allow a discount of three years.

[15] In addition you have stayed on remand for a time approaching 12 months and are entitled to a proper deduction for the accumulated time served. I accordingly deduct another one and a half years for time served.

[16] Much has been said of violence in our society to this I would add one simple statement. You and others like you must learn that the court will impose long terms of imprisonment against those that harm or kill their victims in the process of committing home invasions and robberies. For when you harm and kill others in pursuit of crime citizens and victims are at least entitled to know that your violent actions will be punished and you will be restrained from further violent acts at least by a term of imprisonment.

[17] I sentence you to 8 and half years in jail.

Gerard Winter
JUDGE

At Suva
Friday, 11th May, 2007