State v Bete [2012] FJHC 1223; HAC12.2012 (20 July 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 12 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

PAULA BETE

Counsels: Mr. S. Babitu for the State
Accused in Person

Date of Sentence: 20th July, 2012

SENTENCE

1. The Accused above named together with 3 others were charged for one Count of Aggravated Burglary and two Counts of Theft punishable under section 313 (1) and Section 291 (1) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009 respectively.
   
2. Other Accused Persons were already pleaded guilty to the charges leveled against them. This Accused Paula Bete had presently pleaded guilty and admitted to the Summary of Facts.
   
3. According to the Summary of Facts this Accused together with others between 19th to 20th November 2011 burgled the Vatusui Telecom Radio Station and stolen cables and batteries for the value of $36800. Out of which $17600 value of goods were recovered.
   
4. Considering the nature of the plea to be unequivocal the Court found the Accused guilty as charged and convicted him accordingly.
   
5. Section 313 (1) of the Crimes Decree prescribes a maximum sentence of 17 years imprisonment for the offence of Aggravating Burglary.
   
6. Section 291 of the Crimes Decree prescribes maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the offence of Theft.
   
7. Considering the tariff for the offence of Aggravated Burglary in Tomasi Turuturuvesi v State (2002) HAA 86/02S the Court accepted between 18 months to 3 years as Tariff.
   
8. Tariff for the offence of Theft was discussed in several cases. In Waisale Vakarauvanua v State (2002) FJHC 116; HAA 51J.2004S the Court accepted between 2 to 9 months as tariff for simple theft.
   
9. Considering the nature of the offence especially the items stolen were from government institution, I commence your sentence at 2 years imprisonment for the offence of Aggravated Burglary.
   
10. I commence your sentence for the offence of Theft at 9 months imprisonment.
    
11. Considering both the Aggravated Burglary and Theft took place in the same course of transaction. Both sentences will be implemented concurrently.
    
12. Considering the Aggravating Factors:
    
    1. This was an organized crime.
       
    2. High value items were stolen.
       
    100. Items were stolen from Government Institution.
         
    4. Part of the cables were not recovered.
       

Considering all aggravating factors, I increase your sentence by 2 years. Now your sentence is 4 years imprisonment.

13. Mitigating circumstances:
    
    1. You have pleaded guilty.
       
    2. Some of the items were recovered ($17600).
       
    100. You have co-operated with the Police.
         
    4. You are married and you have a schooling child.
       
    5. You claim you are remorseful.
       
    6. Your period in remand (little more than 7 months).
       

Considering above mitigating circumstances I reduce your sentence by 3 years. Now your sentence is 1year imprisonment.

14. You plead with the Court to consider a suspended sentence. I perused your previous conviction record and I find that you have 9 previous convictions and one of the sentences was a 2 years imprisonment and the same was suspended for a period of 3 years. You have committed this offence within the period of suspended term hence it will be inappropriate to impose another suspended sentence.
    
15. Since you have pleaded guilty to the charges I act under Section 18 (2) of the Sentencing & Penalties decree and refuse to impose a non parole period. Your release will be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Prison authorities.
    
16. You are sentenced to 1 year imprisonment.
    
17. You have 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
    

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
20th July 2012

Solicitors: The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State

Accused in Person