Gaunavou v State [2007] FJHC 49; HAA019.2007 (6 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO.: HAA 19 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

INOKE GAUNAVOU
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Appellant – In Person
Ms. A. Tuiketei - for Respondent/State

Date of Hearing: Friday 27th July, 2007
Date of Decision: Monday 6th August, 2007

DECISION

Introduction

[1] The appellant was charged with one count of burglary and larceny in a dwelling house.

[2] The facts were that while he was acting as a security guard he entered the home he was protecting and stole assorted household items the value of $17,020.00

[3] The appellant pleaded guilty on his first appearance on 8th January 2007. He was subsequently sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. He appeals against sentence.

[4] State counsel helpfully filed comprehensive submissions initially supporting the sentence for three (3) years as being within the available tariff.

[5] However, on a closer inspection of the record counsel responsibly conceded that the learned Magistrate may have fallen into an error in the method used to construct the sentence.

[6] I accept that concession. I now reconstruct the sentence.

[7] The two years starting point selected by the learned Magistrate was appropriate. However, in my view the imposition of a further two years for aggravating factors of breach of trust and the fact that a limited amount of property was recovered, was overly harsh. This was opportunistic offending. The aggravating factors in my mind deserved a further one year imprisonment taking the aggravated total to three (3) years.

[8] From this total should be deducted six (6) months for the appellant’s personal circumstances including most importantly the fact that this was his first offence. This leaves 2 years 6 months.

[9] This young man pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. He deserves full credit for his early plea that saved the court’s times and assisted the victim’s recovery from this traumatic event. I deduct a further one (1) year accordingly leaving a sentence of one and half (1½) years imprisonment.

[10] In my view the prime sentencing principle for this young man was deterrence and then punishment. This was best met by the imposition of a short sentence of imprisonment designed to give him a wake up call in his life and deter him from a life of crime.

[11] There were no grounds upon which one might consider suspending the imprisonment. Accordingly, I quash the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate on 22nd January 2007 and impose in its place a sentence of one and half (1½) years imprisonment.

Gerard Winter
JUDGE

At Suva
Monday 6th August, 2007

Solicitors
Appellant – In Person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Suva – for the Respondent/State