State v Drauna [2010] FJHC 437; HAC154.2010 (22 September 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC154 of 2010

STATE

V

1. FILIMONE B. DRAUNA
2. VILIAME ROKOLEWENIVESI
   

Hearing: 21st September 2010
Sentence: 22nd September 2010

Counsel: Ms S. Naidu for State
Both Accused in person

SENTENCE

[1] The two accused plead guilty to the following offence:

Statement of Offence

ATTEMPTED AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to section 44 and 311(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

FILIMONI BATINIU DRAUNA and VILIAME ROKOLEWENIVESI, on the 8th day of August 2010 at Nasinu in the Central Division, attempted to rob ALBERT UMESH PRASAD of his wallet valued $9.00 and immediately before such attempt used force by assaulting the said ALBERT UMESH PRASAD.

[2] The facts are that on 8 August 2010 at about 12am the complainant was returning home from a shop. He was confronted by the two accused. The accused punched the complainant. As a result, the complainant fell into a cassava patch. The accused snatched the complainant's wallet from his pocket. Upon realizing that the complainant had no money, they returned the wallet to him.

[3] The first accused is 23 years old and single. He is employed as a carpenter by a private company. He resides with his mother and two brothers. He is the sole breadwinner for his family. He is remorseful. He submits that a conviction will take away a prospect of joining the British Army. He seeks a discharge without conviction because this is his first offence. He spent two weeks in custody on remand.

[4] The second accused is 23 years old, single and a farmer by profession. He supports his grandfather. He has six previous convictions since 2005. His last conviction was in 2008 for burglary. He is in custody on remand for the last two months.

[5] The offence committed by the accused is serious. Although this was an attempt to mug the complainant on a street at night time, there was a clear intention to steal from him. The complainant was assaulted and he sustained some minor physical injuries. In these circumstances, a discharge without recording of conviction will be inappropriate.

[6] I am satisfied that the accused freely pleaded guilty and that they intelligently waived their trial rights. Accordingly, they are convicted as charged.

[7] Since this was an attempted robbery, I use 2 years as a starting point. The complainant was attacked on a street by two men at night and he received physical injuries. I add 3 months to reflect these factors.

[8] The accused entered early guilty pleas. They are young men. The first accused is a first time offender. I take into account the remand periods of each accused.

[9] After making adjustments for these factors, both accused are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

[10] The first accused is a young and a first time offender. His sentence is suspended for two years. Further, he is fined $100.00. The cash bail of $100.00 posted by him to be forfeited towards this fine. The second accused is not a first time offender. However, he is a young offender. I partially suspend his sentence. The last 6 months of his sentence is suspended for two years from the date he is released from prison.

[11] Suspended sentence is explained.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
22nd September 2010

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