State v Ratumaijoma [2012] FJHC 1007; Criminal Case 12.2012 (4 April 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 18 of 2012

BETWEEN:

STATE
Appellant

AND:

ILAME RATUMAIJOMA
Respondent

BEFORE : Mr. Justice P. K. Madigan

COUNSEL : Ms. M. Fong for State
Ms. M. Lemaki (LAC) for the Accused

Dates of Hearing : 23, 29 March 2012
Date of Sentence : 4 April 2012

SENTENCE

1. On the 23rd March 2012 in this Court, the accused entered a plea of guilty to the following three counts:
   

First Count

Statement of Offence

BURGLARY: Contrary to Section 312(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

ILAME RATUMAIJOMA on a date unknown between the 13th day of April 2010 and the 24th day of April 2010, at Savusavu in the Northern Division, entered the house of Bill Kesteven as a trespasser with intent to commit theft of property therein.

Second Count

Statement of Offence

THEFT: Contrary to Section 291 of the Crimes Decree No. 4 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

ILAME RATUMAIJOMA on a date unknown between the 13th day of April 2010 and the 24th day of April 2010, at Savusavu in the Northern Division, dishonestly appropriated a chainsaw belonging to Bill Kesteven with intention to permanently deprive the said Bill Kesteven of the chainsaw.

Third Count

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 362(a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

ILAME RATUMAIJOMA on the 24th day of April 2010, at Savusavu in the Northern Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to a dwelling house, the property of Bill Kesteven.

2. On 29 March he admitted a set of facts, whereupon he was found guilty of and convicted of each offence.
   
3. The facts in brief were these: Mr. Bill Keseteven, the complainant is a farmer at Dero Estate, Tunuloa and on the 13th April 2010 he locked his house and truck and went to Savusavu on business. On the 24th April he received a call from a neighbor to tell him that his house and truck had been burned to the ground. He returned to the estate to find everything destroyed and losses, of the house and truck to the value of about F$115,000.00. An investigation of the fire remains concluded that the fire was suspicious. A year later, the accused was discovered in possession of a chainsaw that the complainant had left inside the house before the fire. On arrest and interview, the accused confessed to burning the house and further admitted he had taken a few items, including the chainsaw, before setting the fire. He denied setting fire to the truck but surmised that it must have caught fire from flames coming from the house. The accused admitted a financial dispute with the complainant over payment for cutting and drying copra. With no money and the complainant away, the accused had broken into the house to steal items to sell. Later, seeing the house empty he used fuel soaked pieces of mattress to set fire to the house.
   
4. The accused is 30 years of age, married with 2 children. He is a farmer earning $200 a week and his wife is a housewife.
   
5. His counsel submits that he was driven to distraction by the complainant who had not paid him monies due to him for nearly a year. He regrets what he did and is truly remorseful, a fact borne out by his co-operation with the authorities and his guilty pleas. Of course, his plea of guilty affords him great credit in this sentencing exercise. He has a clear record.
   
6. The principal offence in this trio of offences is arson which therefore becomes the base offence for sentence. The tariff for arson is from two to four years imprisonment, the higher point of the tariff being reserved for arson where there are inhabitants in the property, posing danger to life. For this crime of arson through frustration I take a starting point of two years. There was no danger to life, and the accused knew that at the time. There are no aggravating features and to reflect the plea of guilty and the accused's clear record I deduct eight months making a total sentence for the arson being 16 months imprisonment.
   
7. The tariff for burglary is two to three years imprisonment, three years being the usual sentence for domestic burglary. I take a starting point of three years and reduce that to 16 months for the plea of guilty, the clear record and the mitigating features mentioned. He will serve this term concurrently with the term being served for arson.
   
8. The sentence for theft will be nine months, given that he has never been convicted before of theft, and given that he has pleaded guilty. This term of nine months will again be served concurrently with the other two sentences.
   
9. The total sentence this accused will serve is one of sixteen months. Arson is a serious and destructive crime and for that reason suspension of sentence is not appropriate. The accused will serve a minimum term of twelve months before being eligible for parole.
   

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Labasa
4 April 2012