State v Anderson [2008] FJHC 210; HAC043.2008 (9 September 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 043 of 2008

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

HARRY ANDERSON

Ms. S. Puamau for the State
Accused in Person
Date of Sentence: 9 September 2008.

SENTENCE

1. Harry Anderson, you were charged in, with others, on one count of Shop Breaking Entering and Larceny, contrary to section 300(a) of the Penal Code Cap 17. On 5 September 2008, when the matter was called, you advised the court that you wish to plead guilty.
   
2. The court enquired from you whether your change in plea was due to any duress, intimidation or any other influence. You responded that it was your own decision. You were informed by the court that no guilty plea will be entered before you have had an opportunity to consider the summary of facts that the prosecution will prepare. The case was adjourned to 9 September 2008 for the summary of facts to be prepared and for your response to be obtained and if need be for mitigation and sentence.
   
3. On 9 September 2008 you appeared in court. You had been served with a copy of the summary of facts by the prosecution. When asked by the court for your response to it, you responded that you admit the facts as outline in the summary. Following that admission and having satisfied itself with summary of facts supporting the charge against you, the court entered your guilty plea and convicted your as charged in the Information.
   
4. You provided the court with written submission on matters you want the court to consider in mitigation when determining your sentence.
   
5. This is your sentence. The liable penalty for an offence under section 300(a) of the Penal Code Cap 17 is 14 years imprisonment.
   
6. In considering the sentence in this case, I have been referred to and I accept as correct, the principles and approach adopted in the following High Court Cases: Chand v State [2007] FJHC 65; Felix Vusonitokalau v State Crim App No: HAA 056/05; Charlton Lanyon v State Crim App No; HAA 042/04 and Cavuilagi v State [2004]FJHC 92; HAA: 031/04.
   
7. In the light of the above decisions, the tariff for sentence of this offence is 2-4 years imprisonment.
   
8. In reviewing the admitted facts, I noted that the accused with others robbed a shop and were armed with a pinch bar. Whilst I noted that there were no actual physical violence perpetrated on the victims, there is no doubt that the victims would have been severely traumatized as a result of such an invasion in the early hours of the morning. The involvement of more than one person means that there were planning before the criminal acts charged here was carried out.
   
9. With this in mind I chose 4 years imprisonment as the starting point of the sentence in this case.
   
10. In his written mitigation the accused submits that the court considers the following in sentencing him:
    
    • He is 22 years old and single;
      
    • He cooperated with the police during the investigation of the offence;
      
    • He was not the instigator of the commission of the offence;
      
    • He is sorry and seeks the forgiveness of the court and those he had wronged;
      
    • He apologises to the court for wasting time.
      
11. I accept the above as mitigation for the sentence in this instance. I would discount the sentence by 2 years.
    
12. The court considers the following as aggravating factors and must be considered:
    
    • Prevalence of this type of offence and the need for deterrence in sentences to underscore the need to protect our community;
      
    • There were no recoveries of the goods stolen during the break-in;
      
13. For the above aggravating factors, I increase the sentence by 1 year to 3 years imprisonment.
    
14. For you guilty plea which saved time and resources of the court, a third of your sentence i.e. 1 year, will be discounted, with 2 years imprisonment left.
    
15. You are sentenced to 2 years imprisonment effective from today.
    

Isikeli Mataitoga
JUDGE

9 September 2008.