State v Korovata [2010] FJHC 17; HAC011.2009 (27 January 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
HELD AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No HAC 011 of 2009.

BETWEEN

THE STATE
Applicant

AND

AMASAI KOROVATA
Accused

Mrs. N. Ratakele for the State
Mr. T. Fa for the Accused.

Date of hearing: 26/01/10; 26/01/10
Date of sentencing: 27/01/10

SENTENCE

1. You have been convicted of one offence of intending to do grievous harm to another by unlawfully wounding Gregory Prakash with a cane knife, contrary to section 224(a) of the Penal Code, Cap 17.

2. The facts show that when the victim was working in his cassava plot early on the morning of 24 October 2008, you came out of your house, meters away and approached him angrily, arguing that it was your cassava plot and not his and that he had no right to be there. You then suddenly swung the knife as if to strike a blow on his head, but he fended it off with his hands which resulted in very serious injuries to his right hand, and in fact causing him to lose a third of his middle finger.

3. One shudders to think of what would have happened had the victim not been able to deflect the blow. A cane knife is a very dangerous weapon and in the hands of an angry and belligerent assailant a lethal weapon. The way you swung the knife at Mr. Prakash’s head that morning was unnecessary and it must be assumed that you intended to occasion serious harm - as the assessors unanimously found.

4. Antecedents submitted by the State show that the accused is 45 years old, is married and manages his own business. He is also known to have ten previous convictions in the last 10 years, seven of which are for crimes of violence. A victim impact statement reveals that the victim who lost half of his finger has also lost his self-esteem and feels very insecure in his home environment (The accused having been a close neighbor). He has also lost interest in his studies at Fiji Institute of Technology (F.I.T.) and is working as a taxi driver.

5. On behalf of the accused Mr Fa places emphasis on his happy family life which includes four young children and a stay-at-home wife. He asks me to pass a sentence which will protect this domestic arrangement. He tells me that the accused is a self made business man who runs a company that cleans the exteriors of tall buildings in Suva. He earns a most healthy $125,000 a year from this business. He suggests that a suspended sentence, coupled with a large fine would be an appropriate sentence in the circumstances.

6. Counsel for the State strenuously opposes such a penalty – she stresses that crimes of violence should not attract suspended sentences and that consideration must be given to the seriousness of the crime.

7. The Courts in Fiji have been consistent in finding that the use of cane knives as weapons must inevitably lead to immediate custodial sentences.

8. In the case of State v. Viliame Cavubati HAA 80 of 2001, Shameem J said that sentences for this offence "appear" to range from a suspended sentence where there was little or no injury through to 2½ years. The cases brought to my attention seem to bear that proposition out however given that the maximum term of imprisonment is life imprisonment, this "range" would now appear in 2010 to be rather lenient. By using such a lethal weapon, this offence should only ever attract a suspended sentence in the rarest, circumstances and sentences of up to 4 or 5 years could easily be justified.

9. I would take a starting point for this offence of 18 months imprisonment. There are several aggravating features however to be taken into consideration.

- There was no provocation on the part of the victim

- The victim was unarmed

- The accused attempted to land a blow on the victims head which is of course highly dangerous and potentially lethal

- The victim has been handicapped and been rendered emotionally "disturbed".

For these highly aggravating features, I would add another 12 months to that starting point making a sentence of 2½ years.

10. There are no mitigating features in the accused’s favour. He made an offer of compensation to the victim but it is noteworthy that that offer did not come soon after the assault but 2 weeks before he came to trial – making it an offer attracting a high degree of cynicism. His long record of violent behavior does not afford him any credit from this Court. An obviously violent and belligerent repeat offender can expect no mercy from the Courts.

11. He is sentenced to a term of 2½ years imprisonment.

P K Madigan
Judge

At Suva
27 January 2010