Koroi v State [2007] FJHC 25; HAA 088.2007 (10 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO.: HAA 088 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

MERE DAVETA KOROI
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Mr. A.K. Singh – for the Appellant
Mr. A. Rayawa – for the State

Date of Hearing: Monday 10th September, 2007
Date of Ruling: Monday 10th September, 2007

RULING

This is an Extempore Ruling given at the conclusion of an appeal hearing in HAA 88 of 2007.

Background

[1] The brief background to the matter is that the appellant, who has a lamentable list of previous convictions for dishonesty, first appeared in the Lautoka Court on an unrelated matter in Case 140 of 2007 on the 12th of March of this year and received a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

[2] I am satisfied from what counsel tells me that you then appeared in the Magistrates Court at Nasinu on the subject cases on the 21st of June 2007 where you received three years imprisonment concurrent as between that bracket of offending but consecutive to that 2 year term of imprisonment imposed at Lautoka.

[3] There are two difficulties with the Nasinu sentence. The first is that you pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. In an otherwise well constructed sentence the learned Magistrate failed to apply the ultimate discount to the penalty to reflect that early plea. Accordingly from the 3 year total for that bracket of offending 1 year needs to be deducted making an available sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

[4] The further difficulty is that the learned Magistrate did not have the benefit of an updated record and so was unable to properly consider the totality principle.

[5] It is often said that a recidivist offender may finally benefit from one final sentence of imprisonment where they elect to "clean up" both their previous offending and their criminal lifestyle.

[6] I am satisfied from what counsel has told me that you have reached that point in your life and accordingly should be encouraged towards some form of habilitation. For those reasons and to apply justly the totality principle I would deduct a further one year from the original sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate at Nasinu that makes a total available term then of one year imprisonment to be served concurrently as between that Nasinu bracket of offending but consecutively on the 2 year imprisonment imposed in Lautoka.

Conclusion

[7] In conclusion then the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate at Nasinu on the 21st of June, 2007 is quashed. It is substituted with a sentence of one year imprisonment in respect of each offence to be served concurrently as between the offences but consecutive to existing sentences. That means effectively Mere that your total term has been reduced from one of five years imprisonment to one of three (3) years imprisonment.

[Gerard Winter]
JUDGE

At Suva
Monday 10th September, 2007