State v Nauma [2013] FJHC 99; HAC059.2012 (8 March 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 059 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

SAIRUSI NAUMA

Counsel : Ms. S. Kiran for State
Accused Person in Person
Date of Sentence : 8 March 2013

SENTENCE

1. In this case originally there were 4 Accused persons were charged, 3 of them pleaded guilty early and they were sentenced. In this sentencing remark I follow the same line of reasoning for my sentencing.
   
2. The Accused Person above named with others were charged with one count of Aggravated Burglary and one count of Theft punishable under Section 313 (1) and 291 (1) of the Crimes Decree respectively.
   
3. This Accused pleaded guilty to the charges against him and admitted to the summary of facts.
   
4. Being convinced with the plea to be unequivocal this Court found the Accused Person guilty and convicted him as charged.
   
5. Section 313 (1) of the Crimes Decree prescribes maximum punishment for the offence of Aggravated Burglary as 17 years imprisonment.
   
6. Section 291 (1) of the Crimes Decree provides 10 years as maximum imprisonment for the offence of Theft.
   
7. Considering the tariff for the offence of Aggravated burglary our Court held the tariff is in between 18 months to 3 years. State v Buliruarua (1010) FJHC 384.
   
8. In Waisale Vakarauvanua v State (2004) FJHC 116, HAA 0051.J.2004S the Court held the tariff is in between 2 to 9 months imprisonment for the offence of Theft.
   
9. You have committed the offence of Burglary and theft at a time when this area was under floods. In fact the Country was under Natural disaster declaration. Considering this fact I commence your sentence at 3 years imprisonment for the offence of Aggravated Burglary and 9 months for the offence of Theft.
   
10. Considering the nature of the offence you have committed both offences in the same course of transactions hence I order both sentence to run concurrently.
    
11. Aggravating factors:
    
    1. You have broken into a Business firm and stolen the basic and essential business equipments;
       
    2. Your act may cause fear in the mind of law firms and it may affect their service towards the nation;
       

Considering the above factors I increase your sentence by one year. Now your sentence is 4 years imprisonment.

12. Mitigating Circumstances
    
    • (a) You are a first offender;
      
    • (b) Pleaded guilty
      
    • (c) Stolen goods for the value of $15230 out of $16380 was recovered;
      
    • (d) You surrendered to the police;
      
    • (e) You claim you look after the parents;
      
    • (f) Period in remand.
      

After considering the above mitigating circumstances I reduce 18 months from the sentence. Now your sentence is 30 months.

13. You plead with the Court to consider a non custodial sentence. Considering the nature of the offence especially the time of the offence was committed. I do not think it will be appropriate to grant you a non custodial sentence, when an offence of this nature is committed at the time serious national natural disaster.
    
14. Considering your 11 months period in remand and your age I act under section 26(1) of the Sentencing & Penalties Decree. I impose the following sentence:
    

You are sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.

You will be serving 6 months immediately and the balance of 24 months is suspended for a period of 3 years.

Nature and the gravity of the suspended sentence is explained.

15. You have 30 days to appeal to Court of Appeal.
    

S. Thurairaja
Judge

At Lautoka
8 March 2013

Solicitors : The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Accused appeared in Person