State v Talemaibau [2011] FJHC 733; HAC130.2010 (18 October 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 130 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

1. SAIRUSI TALEMAIBAU
2. TEVITA BOSE
3. TOME BEUKA
   

Counsel: Ms. L. Fotofili for the State
Accused In Person

Date of Sentence: 18th October 2011

SENTENCE

1. The Director of Public Prosecution had preferred the following charge against the 3rd Accused.
   

"TOME BEUKA is charged with the following offence:

Statement of Offence

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: Contrary to sections 306 (1) and 306 (8) of the Crimes Decree 2009.

Particulars of Offence

TOME BEUKA between the 4th day of July 2010 and 5th day of July 2010 at Newtown, Nasinu in the Central Division dishonestly received tainted property namely Fiji Bitter and at the time of receiving, TOME BEUKA knew that the Fiji Bitter were bought with stolen property."

2. When the charge was read and explained to the 3rd Accused he pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the summary of facts.
   
3. Being convinced with his plea of guilty to be unequivocal he is convicted for receiving of stolen property punishable under section 306 (8) of the Crimes Decree.
   
4. According to the admitted summary of facts the 3rd Accused had consumed 4 cartons of beer purchased by his uncle and cousin who were unemployed. He admitted that these beer bottles were purchased with stolen money.
   
5. Tome Beuka now you stand convicted for receiving stolen property punishable under Sections 306 (1) and 306 (8) of the Crimes Decree.
   
6. Section 306 of the Crimes Decree prescribes a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
   
7. Tariff for the offence of Receiving Stolen Property was discussed in State vs Qarasaumaki (2011) FJHC 283 (23 May 2011). As per this decision the tariff is between 1 to 3 years imprisonment.
   
8. Considering all factors I commence your sentence at 2 years imprisonment.
   
9. There is no aggravated factors submitted against you by the Prosecution.
   
10. Considering the mitigating circumstances.
    
    • (i) Early plea of guilty.
      
    • (ii) Surrendered to the police.
      
    • (iii) Fully co-operated with the police.
      
    • (iv) You claim you have to look after your elderly parents.
      
    • (v) You have spent 11 months in remand.
      

Considering all mitigating circumstances I reduce 20 months of your sentence. Now your sentence is 4 months imprisonment.

11. I am mindful that you have previous convictions but considering the nature of the offence I decided to act under Section 26 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
    

"On sentencing an offender to a term of imprisonment a court may make an order suspending, for a period specified by the court, the whole or part of the sentence, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances."

12. After carefully considering all factors I suspend your sentence of 4 months for a period of 3 years. Consequences of the suspended sentence is explained to the 3rd Accused.
    
13. 4 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years.
    
14. 30 days to appeal.
    

S Thurairaja
Judge

At Suva

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