State v Karavaki [2012] FJHC 958; Criminal Case 75.2012 (20 March 2012)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No 75/2012

STATE

V

TEVITA RARO KARAVAKI

Prosecution: Corp. Temesi Evo, Police Prosecutor.
Accused : Appeared in person.

SENTENCE

1. You, Tevita Raro Karavaki are here today to be sentenced on the 'guilty' plea entered on your own accord and free will, in this Court on 02.02.2012, for committing the offence of 'Robbery' contrary to Section 310 (1)(a) of the Crimes Decree No44 of 2009
   
2. You elected a Magistrate Court trial on 14.01.2012.
   
3. According to the Summary of Facts tendered by the Prosecution, which was read over and explained to you in your chosen language, you had committed this offence on 11.01.2012 at around 7.30 pm in Yarawa Road, Nabua. The complainant of this case has been a 20 year old female.
   
4. You have robbed her gold chain and the gold pendent worth of $ 1900 near her work place at Yarawa Road. Later you were arrested by the police and the complainant identified you as the culprit. Further you admitted the offence in the caution interview.
   
5. The aforesaid Summary of Facts was admitted by you on your own free will.
   
6. I have convicted you as charged.
   
7. (i) According to Section 310(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree, the Maximum Sentence that could be imposed against you is 15 years imprisonment.
   

(ii) There is no set tariff for the offence of Robbery under the Crimes Decree, but the courts have considered in robbery cases that involve violence a tariff between 04 to 07 years of imprisonment.

8. According to His Lordship Justice Goundar in the case of The State v. Sakiusa Rokonabete and three others (Criminal Case No. HAC 118 of 2007 Suva, 15th September 2008), aggravating factors, such as, 'group offending', planned acts, vulnerable victim, value of the items taken and using of weapons, would invariably invite for a higher starting point in sentencing.
   
9. In The State v. Timoci Delana [HAC 190 of 2008, 108, 113 and 126 of 2009 on 01st February 2010], Justice Goundar emphasised the above-mentioned facts as aggravating factors.
   
10. According to the Court of Appeal Judgment by Sheppard JA, Gallen JA and Ellis JA in Singh v. State {[2004] FJCA 8; AAU0008.2000S (19th March 2004)}, " 'robbery with violence' either actual or threatened, will always give rise to serious consequences". Following factors have considered as guidelines in sentencing.
    
    1. The extent of the loss arising from the criminal action.
    2. Vulnerability of the victim and the effect of them and their lives.
    3. Subsequent behaviour.
    4. Previous criminal record of the offender.
    5. Remorse (remorse expressed afterwards how genuine cannot carry as much weight)
       
11. According to Goundar J in State v. Vakararawa [2008] FJHC 114, "the dominant factor in assessing seriousness of any type of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened".
    
12. In view of the foregoing circumstances, I set my starting point at 4 years of imprisonment.
    

Aggravating Factors

13. You have committed this offence on a 20 year old female.
    
14. The incident took place around 7.30 at night. You have pushed her to the ground and grabbed the gold chain and the pendent.
    
15. The value of the items was $1900 and never recovered.
    
16. For all the aggravating factors which I have outlined above, I add another 2 years to your term.
    
17. Your period of imprisonment now stands at 06 years.
    

Mitigating Factors

18. I must take into consideration the fact that you did plead guilty, at the first opportunity. Full allowance must be made for the early guilty plea. I would discount the term of imprisonment by 24 months for the guilty plea.
    
19. This will leave a sentence of 4 years imprisonment
    
20. In mitigation the accused and his pastor filed written submissions. You are a 25 year old married person. You have stated that you committed this offence whilst under the influence of liquor. I do not think that this is a ground to consider in mitigation. You are now remorseful for what happened. I deduct a further period of 4 months for your remorse and other mitigation.
    
21. In this instance the sentence is 3 years and 8 months imprisonment.
    
22. Furthermore, pursuant to section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree I reduce another 2 months for the period that you were in remand prior to this sentence.
    
23. Now your final sentence stands at 3 ½ years.
    
24. On record, you have 03 previous convictions. You had been sentenced for a similar offence in 2010. Further it appears that at the time you committed this offence, you were on a suspended sentence for the offence 'Disobedience of a Lawful Order'.
    
25. In R v. Turner 61 Cr. App. R. 67, it was stated that "repeated offenders should be sentenced more heavily than first offenders".
    

Repeat offender

26. in Viliame Cavuilagi v. State, Crim. App. HAA 0031 of 2004 Winter J has made following comments regarding a repeat offender.
    

"Repetitive, recidivist of offending must inevitably lead to longer sentences of imprisonment unless the offender can demonstrate special circumstances that motivate the court to sentence otherwise. This principle meets three of society's needs. Firstly it might act as a deterrent to the offender and others who fall into a pattern of semi-professional crime to support themselves. Second, society is entitled to sideline or warehouse repeat offenders out of the community for longer periods of time so that at least during the term of incarceration they cannot wreck havoc on the lives of law-abiding citizens. Third, offenders deserve punishment that fits the circumstances of the crime".

27. You Tevita Raro Karavaki are sentenced to 3 ½ years imprisonment for the offence of Robbery. You will serve 2 ½ years of that term before being eligible for parole.
    
28. 28 days to Appeal.
    

Pronounced in open Court

YOHAN LIYANAGE
Resident Magistrate
Suva

20th March 2012