State v Nate Sentence [2011] FJHC 584; HAC094.2011 (7 September 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 094 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

1. SEMI NATE
2. MELI VALETIRI
   

Counsel: Mr. J. Daurewa for the State
Ms. N. Nawasaitoga for 1st Accused
Accused 2 and Accused 3 in Person

Date of Summing Up: 19th August 2011
Date of Sentence: 07th September 2011

SENTENCE

1. Both Accused persons were charged for 3 counts of Robbery which are punishable under section 293 (1) (a) of the Penal Code, (Cap 17).

2. At the conclusion of the trial, all three assessors had unanimously found both Accused persons guilty as charged. This Court after carefully considering all, found both Accused persons guilty for Robbery punishable under section 293 (1) (a) of the Penal Code.

3. Both Accused persons had committed a Robbery in a public place in a broad day light. These 2 Accused persons together with others armed with knives and empty bottles.

4. In this case the Accused persons executed a very well planned robbery, they have taken a vehicle, came to the shopping arcade, in front of the public threatened 3 Chinese men and robbed their mobile phones, cash and other items.

5. Considering facts, it appears these Accused persons had no regards towards the victims and the public who were present at that place.

6. As it was discussed in many other cases, mobiles phones are becoming essential item to the people. From contacting others and involving in heavy business are some of the purposes of mobile phones. It is important, most if not all have their contact numbers and details in their mobile phone. Virtually it is a mobile directory to users. If it is lost these people will fall in great difficulties sometimes they are unable to contact people in emergencies and important matters. These Accused persons had no regard of all these and they only saw it as selling commodity.

7. Mr. Justice Winter said in Waisake Matahau Uluikadavu – HAA 35 of 2004:

Home invasions are a particularly traumatic invasion into the lives of citizens. The most striking feature of these episodes is the sheer terror to its victims. They are set upon within the apparent safety of a private dwelling by complete strangers. These unjustified acts of terrorism by intruders within the home invade the family sanctuary and violate the sense of security that lies at the heart of each home. As such, these acts not only affect the lives of their immediate victims but also instill fear in the whole community creating a siege like mentality."

This dicta is applicable to business places as discussed in this case also.

8. Sentencing both Accused persons this Court is mindful of the purpose of sentencing outlined in section 4 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.

(a) to punish offenders to an extent and in a manner which is just in all the circumstances;

(b) to protect the community from offenders;

(c) to deter offenders or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar nature;

(d) to establish conditions so that rehabilitation of offenders may be promoted or facilitated;

(e) to signify that the court and the community denounce the commission of such offences; or

(f) any combination of these purposes.

9. Section 293 (1) prescribes maximum penalty as life imprisonment.

10. Considering the tariff, In Gustan F Kean (2011) FJSC 11; CAV0015.2010 (12th August 2011) Supreme Court endorsed the tariff for this sort of offence is between 6 to 14 years imprisonment.

11. Considering the nature of the offence this Court commence the sentence at 7 years imprisonment.

12. Considering the Aggravating factors.

(a) This is an organized gang robbery.

(b) Robbery was committed in a public place.

(c) Robbery committed at a broad day light.

(d) Weapons used for the Robbery.

(e) No recoveries made from Accused persons.

Considering all above factors this Court enhances the sentence by 3 years. Now your sentence is 10 years imprisonment.

13. Considering the mitigating factors of the 1st Accused Semi Nate.

(a) Married with 2 small children.

(b) Sole bread winner.

(c) Looking after the aged father.

(d) Period spent in remand.

(e) No physical injuries caused to anyone in the robbery.

Considering all, this Court reduces the sentence by 3 years. Now the sentence is 7 years imprisonment.

14. Considering the mitigating circumstance of the 2nd Accused Meli Valetiri.

(a) He is a 1st offender.

(b) He is 43 years old without any previous conviction.

(c) Married with 3 children.

(d) Looking after elderly mother.

(e) Period spent in remand.

(f) No physical injuries caused to anyone in the robbery.

Considering all above factors especially that the 2nd Accused is a 1st offender this Court reduces the sentence by 5 years. Now the sentence is 5 years imprisonment.

15. Both Accused persons seek very lenient sentence including suspended sentence. This Court must consider the society at large especially the victims. It is observed by the High Court on many occasions that the offence of Robbery is prevalent in Suva. Considering present sentences imposed by my brother Judges the tariff is much higher than the earlier cases. Further this view is endorsed by the Supreme Court also.

16. This Court act under section 18 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree. The 1st Accused is imposed of 5 years and the 2nd Accused 3 years as non parole period.

17. In summary 1st Accused is imposed of 7 years imprisonment with 5 years non parole period. 2nd Accused is imposed of 5 years imprisonment with 3 years non parole period.

18. 30 days to appeal.

S Thurairaja
Judge

At Suva

Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for the 1st Accused
2nd Accused In Person