Baleidaku v State [2010] FJHC 52; HAA014.2009 (23 February 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAA 014 of 2009

BETWEEN:

MACIU BALEIDAKU
The Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
The Respondent

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Mr. M Kaisamy for the State

Date of Hearing: 22 February 2010
Date of Judgment: 23 February 2010

JUDGMENT

[1] The appellant appeals against his sentence of 2½ years imprisonment for an offence of bulk store breaking and larceny. His grounds are that the sentence is excessive and that his co-accused was discharged.

[2] The facts are that between 3 June 2009 and 4 June 2009, the complainant left his bulk store unattended. He had stored a brush cutter, a circular saw and insulating tapes in the bulk store. The appellant stole these items by breaking the padlock of the main door. All the stolen items were recovered following the appellant’s arrest.

[3] The appellant pleaded guilty when he appeared in the Magistrates’ Court for arraignment. The learned Magistrate after considering the facts and the caution interview of the co-accused, made an order discharging him, because the facts did not implicate him to the charged offence.

[4] The learned Magistrate found the appellant to be the principal offender. After considering the guideline judgments such as Viliame Cavuilagi v State Crim. App. No. HAA0031 of 2004, Waisake Ratudina v State [2005] HAA001-02/05B and Tomasi Turuturuvesi v State HAA86/02S, the learned Magistrate picked a starting point of 3 years imprisonment, added 1 year for the planning being involved and subtracted 1½ years for the early guilty plea and cooperation with the police. I take the cooperation with the police included the recovery of the stolen items.

[5] The learned Magistrate did not give any credit for previous good character because the appellant had previous convictions for similar offences. The learned Magistrate took the view that a suspension of the sentence was out of question because neither the appellant was a young person, nor he was a first time offender.

[6] No error of law or principle has been shown in the sentence imposed on the appellant. The learned Magistrate took into account only the relevant factors in imposing the term of 2 ½ years imprisonment. The term of imprisonment is within the tariff for this type of offence.

[7] The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Daniel Goundar
Judge

At Labasa
Tuesday 23 February 2010

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Appellant in Person