Tavuraniqiwa v State [2008] FJHC 15; HAA 008.2008 (8 February 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: HAA 008 of 2008

Between:

MESULAME TAVURANIQIWA
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 1st February 2008
Judgment: 8th February 2008

Counsel: Appellant in person
Ms L. Lagilevu for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was charged with three others with the offence of escaping from lawful custody. The charge was filed on the 15th of March 2007 and all accused persons pleaded guilty. The facts were that on the 12th of March 2006, the Appellant was serving a term of imprisonment at the Naboro Minimum Prison. Between 3.30pm and 4.45pm, when POC Aisea Levi was checking the prisoners for the "B" Dormitory he found the prisoners missing. The Appellant was missing from the "D" Dorm. A search was conducted at Naikorokoro and the Appellant and his co-accused were all arrested, on the following day. They admitted the offence.

The Appellant had two previous convictions. One is for rape, for which he is serving a 10 year term of imprisonment. In mitigation the Appellant said nothing.

The learned Magistrate said that all accused deserved deterrent consecutive sentences and sentenced each to 6 months imprisonment to be served consecutive to their existing terms.

The Appellant says that this is harsh and excessive and that other such offenders have received concurrent terms. In his written submissions in court, he said that the length of his term caused him to become overcome by emotion and led him to succumb to peer pressure.

The State opposes the appeal, saying that the tariff for escaping is 6 to 12 months imprisonment (Nemani Kaverevere v. State HAC 16/03) and that such sentences should always be served consecutively. I agree. If terms of imprisonment for escaping were to be made concurrent, there would be no deterrent value in them at all. As a matter of principle, sentences for escaping from lawful custody should have the effect of lengthening the term of imprisonment served.

In this case the Appellant’s sentence was correct. This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
8th February 2008