Salayawa v State [2010] FJHC 71; HAA002.2010 (4 March 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA 002 OF 2010
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 1158 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

MANOA SALAYAWA
APPELLANT

AND:

STATE
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Appellant - In person
Respondent - Ms. Leweni T

Date of Hearing: 17th February, 2010.
Date of Judgment: 4th March, 2010.

JUDGMENT

[1] This is an appeal against the Sentence. The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of house breaking with intent to commit felony and was sentenced for 14 months imprisonment by the Magistrate’s Court.

[2] The facts were the appellant broke into the dwelling house of Salendra Krishna Nair at about 20.00hrs.

Neighbour informed this over the phone and PW1 went straight to the kitchen and saw accused pulling apart the timber wall and the kitchen door using a screw driver. When PW1 switched on the lights accused pulled his hand from the lock and ran away. PW1 grabbed the kitchen knife and ran after accused. Accused turned back and tried to hit with the screw driver and in the process PW1 strike the kitchen knife at accused and hit on his lap.

Matter was reported to Police and accused was arrested at the scene. Accused admitted committing the offence at the caution interview.

[3] The grounds of appeal urged by the accused appellant are:

(i) That the Learned Magistrate was erred in law in not taking into consideration the fact that this indictment should be handed a non-custodial sentence since nothing was actually taken.

(ii) That the Learned Magistrate was erred in Law in not taking into account my early guilty Plea which the applicant feels has saved the Courts time and the taxpayers money.

(iii) That the Learned Magistrate was erred in Law in not fully considering the mitigation factors which the applicant had submit before the sentencing.

(iv) That the Learned Magistrate was erred in law and infact in not taking into account the injury which the applicant received during the indictment which almost took the applicants life.

(v) That the Learned Magistrate was erred in law and in fact in not considering or taking into account the fact that I had been remanded for more than two months, and failed to back date my sentence.

(vi) That the Learned Magistrate was erred in law and infact in imposing such a harsh sentence for the matter which is wrong in all circumstances and principle.

I will now deal with each ground separately.

[4] Ground No.1

The Learned Magistrate when deciding on a custodial sentence has given sound and sufficient reasons for not suspending the sentence.

In her sentencing judgment Learned Magistrate has said:

"In sentencing you, I note that you have been given many opportunities to rehabilitate yourself but you have failed to do so. You have 15 previous convictions. Therefore I cannot grant your request for a non custodial sentence".

[5] In Aliki Vilimone v The State (2008) FJHC 12; HAA 131- 132. 2007 (8 Feb. 2008) Although the sentence was reduced to 2 years in appeal, court did not suspend the sentence as special circumstances did not exist.

In the instant case the Learned Magistrate has not suspended the term of imprisonment giving reasons and correctly using her discretion.

Therefore 1st ground of appeal should necessarily fail.

[6] Ground No. 2 and 3

Although accused appellant contends that the Learned Magistrate has not taken into account the guilty plea in her sentencing judgment she has clearly mentioned that she would deduct 12 months for guilty plea and remorse and all other mitigating factors.

Therefore the Learned Magistrate has taken into account all the mitigating factors mentioned.

[7] In Mitieli Naikelekelevesi v State (2008) FJCA 11; AAU0061.2007 the Court of Appeal said that where there is a guilty plea this should be discounted for separately from the mitigating factors in the case. As correctly submitted by the Counsel for State (Respondent) although the Learned Magistrate has not separately mentioned the period reduced for guilty plea and the mitigating factors, 12 months discounted period is even excessive when compared to the sentence passed. Therefore no prejudice has caused to the accused. Hence the grounds 2 and 3 is dismissed.

4th Ground

The appellant is said to have sustained injury during the altercation he had with the PW1 when trying to escape. The nature of the injury cannot be ascertained as there is no medical report.

To seek discount in sentence for the injury caused under these circumstances is unfounded in Law.

5th Ground

Although the appellant states that the Learned Magistrate has failed to account for time spent in remand in her judgment she has deducted 2 months for the time spent in custody which is adequate.

6th Ground

Accused contends that punishment is harsh and wrong in all circumstances and principle. The Learned Magistrate has been lenient in selecting the starting point of 2 years which is on the lower end of the tariff band. She has considered the aggravating factors and mitigating factors into account. Accused is not entitled to a discount for good behavior as he has a heap of previous convictions.

When considering the circumstances of this case the sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate seems to be lenient and inadequate. But considering that the accused was injured in the process although the nature of the injury is not available this court will not take steps to enhance the sentence passed on the accused appellant.

In the above premise I seek no merit in the appeal and the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Priyantha Fernando
Puisne Judge