State v Wise [2011] FJHC 35; HAC178.2010 (8 February 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 178 of 2010

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

WALLACE WISE

Counsel : Mr. C. Ratakele for the State
Accused in Person

Date of Sentence : 08th February 2011

SENTENCE

1. You are charged by the Director of Public Prosecution for committing the offence of Aggravated Robbery punishable under section 311(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree 2009.
   
2. When the case was mentioned on the 24th January 2011 for Pre-Trial conference you have pleaded guilty to the charge. You have also admitted the summary of facts submitted by the State.
   
3. Now I reproduce the summary of facts submitted by the State.
   

"On the 17/04/10 at about 2am Wallace Wise and others unlawfully entered the house of one Shiu Ram at Lot 52 Farm Road, Nakasi. Wallace Wise and the others were armed with a cane knife and a pinch bar. Shiu Ram and his family were asleep. Wallace Wise and the others forced open the door with a pinch bar. At the sound of the nose, Shiu Ram woke up and went to investigate what was going on. Wallace Wise was one of the robbers inside. He and the others involved took $200.00 cash and assorted jewelleries worth $440.00 to the total value of $640.00. Wallace Wise and the others then fled the scene of the crime and threw away the cane knife and pinch bar."

4. Considering the nature of your plea to be unequivocal the Court convicted you as charged.
   
5. Section 311(1)(a) states as follows:
   

"A person commits an indictable offence is he or she-

(a) Commits a robbery in company with one or more other persons; or
(b) Commits a robbery and, at the time of the robbery, has an offensive weapon with him or her."

Penalty – Imprisonment for 20 years.

6. Now I consider the tariff to the offence. In Gustan F.Kean Criminal Appeal AAU 0048 of 2008 the Court of Appeal endorsed the tariff for the sort of offence is between 6 to 14 years imprisonment.
   
7. Considering the nature of the offence I commence your sentence at 6 years imprisonment.
   
8. Now I consider the aggravating factors.
   
   1. This is an organized Gang robbery.
   2. You have entered the house of the victim at 2.30am.
   100. You have used deadly weapons to commit the offence.
   4. The victim was 62 years old.
   5. The victim was assaulted and had received injuries on the head, chest and on the eyebrow and later received treatment.
   6. The wife of the victim was also threatened at pre dawn hours of the day and her

jewelleries were robbed.

Considering all I increased 6 years. Now your sentence is 12 years imprisonment.

9. Now I consider the mitigating circumstances.
   
   1. Your period in remand.
   2. You are remorseful.
   100. You have pleaded guilty without going for a trial.
   4. You claim you have to look after your family.
   5. You have two small children to look after.
      

Considering all I reduce 5 years. Now your sentence is 7 years.

10. You seek very lenient sentence, but I must consider the society especially the victim. They should be free to sleep at their residence without fear of death and violence. It is observed that the offence of Robbery is prevalent here in Suva. That may be the reason the legislation thought prudent to set out a maximum sentence of 20 years. Considering your mitigation I am imposing a sentence of 7 years imprisonment.
    
11. I am mindful that your co-accused Ratu Meli Bainivalu who pleaded guilty was imposed 6 years imprisonment by brother Judge but the circumstances is different in your case therefore you are imposed of 7 years imprisonment.
    
12. I act under section 18(1) of the Sentencing & Penalties Decree. I am imposing 5 years as non parole period. It does not mean you should be released after 5 years. If you behave well the relevant authorities may consider your release after 5 years.
    
13. You have 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
    

S Thurairaja
Judge

At Suva

Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Accused in Person