Saukuru v State [2007] FJHC 57; HAA042.2007 (14 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: HAA 042 of 2007

Between:

IOWANE MELETI SAUKURU
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 10th August 2007
Judgment: 14th August 2007

Counsel: Appellant in person
Ms N. Ratakele for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was convicted of the offence of larceny from dwelling house and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on the 29th of March 2007. He appeals against sentence on the grounds that the learned Magistrate failed to take into account partial recovery of the stolen items, his prompt guilty plea and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

He was charged with stealing four mats valued at $1200 from the house of Timaima Tawake, on the 30th of December 2006. The case was called on the 15th of March 2007 and the Appellant pleaded guilty after waiving his right to counsel.

The facts were that at about 9am on the 30th of December 2006, a 74 year old lady Wainikiti Vasu was standing outside the complainant’s home when the Appellant arrived, driving a van Registration number ER 988. The Appellant told her that he wanted to buy mats from the complainant. He went inside the house. The complainant was not there and the house was empty. The Appellant stole four mats. He then boarded the van and got off in Suva. He sold the mats for $200 and when arrested admitted the offence. These facts were admitted. The Appellant also admitted two previous convictions, one in 1999 for larceny by trick, and another in 2004 for larceny from dwelling-house. He received a non-custodial sentence for both.

In mitigation he expressed remorse, and returned two mats to the complainant. He is single and said he had been in prison in 2000, for receiving stolen property.

Sentence was delivered on the 29th of March 2007. The learned Magistrate picked 2 years imprisonment as his starting point, which is at the lower end of the tariff. He took into account the guilty plea, the remorse, the value of the mats ($1200), the Appellant’s previous convictions and the recovery of two of the mats. He sentenced the Appellant to 18 months imprisonment.

The Appellant in court said that he had offered an apology to the complainant, who had accepted it. He said that inadequate weight had been placed on the recovery of two of the mats and on his early guilty plea.

State counsel opposes the appeal pointing to similar sentences imposed in Raj v. The State [2005] HAM0006.J 2005S, Jeke v. The State [2005] HAA0087J.2005 and Charlton Lanyon v. State HAA0042.2004. In this last case, Winter J said that a sentence within the range of 1 to 4 years was appropriate with repeat offenders attracting sentences of at least 2 years imprisonment.

I consider that the learned Magistrate was correct in principle and approach. The Appellant has been given opportunities in the past to reform himself and has not availed himself of them. This larceny, in a house in broad daylight, of mats which take months to weave and which are valuable in both cultural and monetary terms, called for an immediate custodial sentence notwithstanding the remorse and the guilty plea.

This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
14th August 2007