|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 18 OF 2011
STATE
-v-
NIUMAIA RAVULO SEMANAIQOLIQOLI
Counsels : Ms. S. Kiran for the State
The accused in Person
Date of Sentence : 30 June 2014
SENTENCE
FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence
MURDER: Contrary to Section 237 of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
Particulars of the offence
NIUMAIA RAVULO SEMANAIQOLIQOLI on the 15th day of January, 2011 at Lautoka in the Western Division was reckless as to cause the death of PUSPA KANTA.
SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to section 311(1) (b) of the Crimes Decree No.44 of 2009
Particulars of the offence
NIUMAIA RAVULO SEMANAIQOLIQOLI on the 15th day of January 2011 at Lautoka in the Western division being armed with a kitchen knife stole an Alcatel mobile phone valued at $20.00, gold chain valued at $100.00 and cash $25.00 all to the total value of $145.00 from PUSPA KANTA
The deceased in this case is Puspa Kanta, 44 years old of Navo, Nadi whilst the accused in this matter is Niumaia Ravulo Semanaiqoliqoli, 24 years old of Maqalevu Village, Nadi.
At about 3.15 pm, the deceased got off a bus coming from Nadi and going towards Lautoka at the Vuda back road junction as she was going to her sister's place further up the road. As she went past the garage, the accused started following her. Bal Ram who saw the accused going with the deceased became suspicious, told his son Sailesh Yash Ram to keep an eye on the accused. They saw that the accused and deceased started talking and the deceased gave him her plastics to hold. After a while, they turned into a bend and Sailesh Yash Ram lost sight of them so he continued with his work.
At about 3.30 pm, Chandra Kanta, deceased sister was at her home with her husband, Madhwan when she heard her dogs barking and also heard a female voice shouting for help. She walked up her driveway which starts from Vuda back road to see. Her driveway is about 40 meters from her house to the main road. Whilst watching, she saw a female wearing red top and black trousers run across her driveway and then falling down on her chest. She then shouted for her husband to come and check. Her husband came and discovered that it was her sister, the deceased lying in a pool of blood with stab wounds on her neck. Madhwan then went to look for a transport to take her to the hospital; he came back later with Bal Ram from the garage who identified her as going with a Fijian boy but by this time, the deceased had passed away.
Upon further investigation, the accused was arrested from Nadi where the deceased mobile phone, bank card, FNPF card and 2 gold chains were recovered from his possession. These properties were positively identified by the deceased husband, Govind Sami Naidu as that of the deceased.
According to the post mortem report, conducted by Dr Ponnu Sami Goundar, the deceased cause of death was shock, excessive loss of blood due to the cuts on the neck.
Furthermore, the accused was identified in an identification parade by the taxi driver Shan Ali and Sailesh Yash Ram.
He confirmed at question 93 to 100 that he saw one Indian lady getting off a bus from Nadi to Lautoka and crossed the road and went along the Vuda back road. He further confirmed that he was sniffing glue. In addition, he stated that the Indian lady caught up to him and he offered to carry some of her bags which consisted of one big brown bag, one small bag and one plastic containing clothes. But just before they reached the feeder road that led to the deceased sister's house, they sat down to talk. Accused said at question 111 to 113 that he then pulled out a joint of marijuana and smoked it using his white gas lighter. The deceased also smoked the left over roll and after a while the accused suddenly stood up and punched the deceased on her chin causing her to fall down (question 122). At question 123 to 126, he stated that he then stood up, pulled out the knife with his back towards her and then turned around and stabbed her on her neck with his left hand then with his right hand, stabbed her neck again. At Question 127 the accused stated that he then took the brown bag and the hand bag and ran across the Vuda back road into the mangroves opposite the road and followed one small stream. At question 169 he stated that he also used the money he stole from the deceased. He stated at Question 135 and 136 that he knew that the deceased had died because he had squeezed the knife when he stabbed and she was bleeding a lot.
The accused was subsequently charged with one count of murder and one count of aggravated robbery. In his charge statement he voluntarily admitted that what he did was wrong and it was not his intention to kill her but just wanted to steal her money. It was during their struggle that he stabbed her with his knife.
"Murder" is a serious offence, and it is often said, to be at the top of the criminal calendar. It carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. (Section 237, Crime Decree 2009). The court has the power to fix a non-parole period to be served, before a prisoner is eligible for parole. Case precedents show that the non-parole period for murder varies widely, depending on the peculiar facts of the case. In Waisale Waqanivalu v The State, Criminal Appeal No. CAV 0005 of 2007, Supreme Court, Fiji, on 5 counts of murder and 1 of attempted murder, the accused was given 19 years non-parole period on each murder count, and 10 years consecutive on a pending prison sentence, total non-parole period was 26 years. In State v Niume & Others, Criminal Case No. HAC 010 of 2010, High Court, Suva, on 2 counts of murder, Accused No. 1 was given 25 years non-parole period for the murder counts. In State v Ashwin Chand, Criminal Case No. HAC 032 of 2005, High Court, Lautoka, on a count of murder, the accused was given a non-parole period of 22 years. In State v Navau Lebobo, Criminal Case No. HAC 016 of 2002, High Court, Suva, the non-parole period was 20 years. Twenty years non-parole period were also imposed in the following three cases: State v Anesh Ram, Criminal Case No. HAC 124 of 2008S, High Court, Suva; The State v Bharat Lal & Others, Criminal Case No. HAC 061 of 2009S, High Court, Suva; The State v Balekivuya, Criminal Case No. 095 of 2010S, High Court, Suva. In State v Tukana, Criminal Case No. HAC 021 of 2009, High Court, Lautoka, the non-parole period was 11 years. The non-parole period imposed will depend on the mitigating and aggravating factors.
"The dominant factor in assessing seriousness for any types of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened. The degree of injury to the victim or the nature of and duration of threats are also relevant in assessing the seriousness of an offence of robbery with violence. If a weapon is involved in the use or treat of force that will always be an important aggravating feature. Group offending will aggravate an offence because the level of intimidation and fear caused to the victim will be greater. It may also indicate planning and gang activity. Being the ring leader in a group is an aggravating factor. If the victims are vulnerable, such as elderly people and person providing public transport, that will be an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors may include the volume of items taken and the fact that an offence was committed whilst the offender was on bail.
The seriousness of an offence of robbery is mitigated by factors such as a timely guilty plea, clear evidence of remorse, ready co-operation with the police, response to previous sentence, personal circumstances of offender, first offence of violence, voluntary of property taken, a minor part, and lack of planning involved."
"The maximum penalty for robbery with violence under Penal Code is life imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery under the Crimes Decree is 20 years imprisonment. Although the maximum sentence under the Decree has been reduced to 20 years imprisonment, in my judgment, the tariff of 8-14 years imprisonment established under the old law can continue to apply under the new law. I hold this for two reasons. Firstly, the established tariff of 8-14 years under the old law falls below the maximum sentence of 20 years under new law. Secondly, under the new law, aggravated robbery is made an indictable offence, triable only in the High Court, which means the Executive's intention is to continue to treat the offence seriously."
Sudharshana De Silva
JUDGE
At Lautoka
30th June 2014
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Accused in Person
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2014/478.html
