State v Buliruarua [2010] FJHC 384; HAC157.2010 (6 September 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC157 of 2010

STATE

v

MIKAELE BULIRUARUA

Hearing: 3rd September 2010
Sentence: 6th September 2010

Counsel: Mr. P. Katia for State
Accused in person

SENTENCE

[1] The accused stand convicted of aggravated burglary on his own plea of guilty.

[2] The facts are that on 3 August 2010, he unlawfully entered into a prison officer's home with a 16 year old accomplice and stole items to a total value of $856.95. The accused and his co-accused were arrested on the same day. All stolen items were recovered from them. Under caution the accused admitted the offence.

[3] Aggravated burglary under the Crimes Decree is punishable by imprisonment for 17 years. Previously under the Penal Code, burglary was punishable by imprisonment for life.

[4] The tariff for burglary under the Penal Code was 18 months to 3 years imprisonment (Tomasi Turuturuvesi v. State [2002] HAA86/02S).

[5] Until a new tariff is set for this offence under the Crimes Decree, I apply the old tariff under the Penal Code.

[6] The accused is 18 years old. Currently he is serving a sentence of 6 months for theft in an unrelated matter. His parents are unemployed. He has 5 siblings. The accused is the youngest of all the siblings. He left school in 2005 after completing Class 8. He has been farming for living.

[7] The accused is a young offender. He comes from a disadvantaged background. He entered an early guilty plea. He co-operated with the police. He is remorseful. The stolen items have been recovered. These are the mitigating factors.

[8] I do not consider this as a serious case of burglary. There is no evidence of any planning involved or damage done to the complainant's house.

[9] I pick 2 years as my starting point. I reduce the term by 1 year to reflect the mitigating factors and arrive at a sentence of 1 year imprisonment.

[10] To give effect to the principle of deterrent I order the accused serve 6 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with any pre-existing sentence. To give effect to the principle of rehabilitation, I order the remaining 6 months to be suspended for 2 years from the date the accused is released.

[11] The sentence of the accused is 12 months imprisonment. The first 6 months to be served in prison concurrently with any pre-existing sentence and the remaining 6 months to be suspended for 2 years from the date of his release from prison. Suspended sentence is explained to the accused.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
6th September 2010

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Accused in person