Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: 81OF 2014
BETWEEN:
TANIELA KARURU COKANAWAI
Applicant
AND:
STATE
Respondent
Counsel: Applicant in Person
Mr. Aman Dattfor Respondent
Date of Hearing: 13 November 2014
Date of Ruling: 25 November 2014
RULING
"Appellate courts examine five factors by way of a principled approach to such applications. These factors are:
(i) The reason for the failure to file within time.
(ii) The length of the delay.
(iii) Whether there is a ground of merit justifying the appellate courts consideration.
(v) Where there has been substantial delay, nonetheless is there a ground of appeal that will probably succeed?
(v) If time is enlarged, will the respondent be unfairly prejudiced?"
"These factors may not be necessarily exhaustive, but they are certainly convenient yardsticks to assess the merit of an application for enlargement of time. Ultimately, it is for the court to uphold its own rules, while always endeavoring to avoid or redress any grave injustice that might result from the strict application of the rules of court. "
"It is well established law that before this court can disturb the sentence, the appellant must demonstrate that the court below fell into error in exercising its sentencing discretion. If the trial Judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes facts, if he does not take into account some of the relevant considerations, then the appellate court may impose a different sentence. This error may be apparent form the reasons for sentence or it may be inferred from the length of the sentence itself. (House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499)
Ground 1
"Applying all these principles, I find that the accepted tariff for Attempted Rape in the Fiji Courts ranges from 12 months imprisonment to 5 years imprisonment. A starting point should then be chosen according to the seriousness of the offending.
In the case before me, a starting point of 5 years imprisonment was not appropriate. This was not the most serious offence of its kind. There was no evidence of injuries, extreme youth or age of the victim, or of the use of weapons or gratuitous violence. However, it was clearly not the least serious of its kind, which might have justified the lowest starting point. The Appellant used subterfuge to lure the victim to a vacant house, he deliberately referred to a pastor to gain her confidence, he would have completed the offence if he had not been disturbed, and he used force to get the victim to lie down pulling her panties down to her knees. This was not a "borderline" indecent assault.
As such I consider a starting point of 4 years imprisonment to be appropriate. The Appellant was entitled to a reduction for his guilty plea of one year, but was not entitled to any further reduction for good character. In all the circumstances, I consider a sentence of 3 years imprisonment to be appropriate."
Ground 2
Ground 3
No discount is allowed for your guilty plea as this was done nearly 4 years after the first call date.'
"The appellant suggests that the reference to the fact the plea of guilty was entered late means he was not given full credit for it. Whenever an accused person admits his guilt by pleading guilty, the court will give some credit for that as a clear demonstration of remorse. However, the amount that will be given is not fixed and will depend on the offence charged and the circumstances of each case. The maximum credit is likely to be given for offences such as rape and personal violence because it saves the victim having to relive the trauma in the witness box. At the other end of the scale, little or no credit may be given if the evidence is so overwhelming that the accused has no real option but to admit it. Where, as here, the accused has admitted the offence and the receipt of his share of the money, the delay in pleading guilty must reduce the value of the plea considerably.'"
Ground 4,5,6 & 7
'As per his previous conviction records he holds 13 convictions with last conviction for the offence of rape. He is currently serving an imprisonment term of 15 years with 13 years as non-parole.
Considering the offence being committed and the safety of the community at large and taking into account the totality principle in sentencing I find it is only proper for you to serve this 4 years term imprisonment consecutive to your current term.'
"[22] The situation that presents itself to the Court therefore, and a proposition advanced by counsel for the appellant is this: there being no guidance from authorities of higher courts on concurrent or consecutive sentencing, we are left only with the legislation (Sentencing and Penalties Decree) which states that subsequent sentences must be served concurrently with existing sentences.
[23] Guidance for this situation can still be gleaned from the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in JojiWaqasaqa v State [2006] FJHC 6 CAV 0009U.2005S (8 June 2006) by analogy. If the Court said (and it did) that where the "default" position was consecutive, then a Court would have to give "reasoned justification" to depart from that position in making sentences concurrent, then a Court must now when the "default" position is concurrency make a reasoned justification to depart from the "default" position in making sentences consecutive or partly consecutive."
'Repetive, recidivist 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 wreak havoc on the lives of law abiding citizens. Third, offenders deserve punishment that fits the circumstances of the crime.'
Sudharshana De Silva
JUDGE
At Lautoka
25th November 2014
Solicitors: Applicant in person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Respondent
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2014/863.html