State v Boila - Sentence [2015] FJHC 303; HAC111.2014 (14 April 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
AT LAUTOKA

CRIMINAL CASE: HAC 111 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

SENIJIELI BOILA

Counsel : Mr. Niudamu J with Mr. Nath S. for State,
Ms. Jiuta S. for the Accused Person,

Date of Hearing : 8th -10th of April 2015,
Date of Summing Up : 13th of April 2015,
Date of Judgment : 13th of April 2015.
Date of Sentence : 14th of April 2015.

SENTENCE

1. You, Senijieli Boila stand convicted for one count of Aggravated Robbery, contrary to section 311 (1) (b) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment period.
   
2. Subsequent to the hearing of this charge and the unanimous guilty verdict of the three assessors, the court found that you are guilty of this offence of aggravate robbery and convicted accordingly.
   
3. It was proved at the conclusion of the hearing that you together with three others came in a car and parked in front of the gate of the car park of City Forex Fiji Limited. Two of you then ran towards Sunil Prasad and Ranjeet Kumar, employees of the City Forex Fiji Limited, when they were about to board into a vehicle with cash of 50,000 to go their branch at the Nadi International Air Port. One of you was armed with a screw driver and other one was with a cane knife. They forced the two employees to lie down on the ground and then stole the cash $ 50, 000 from them. You were then found in possession of the stolen cash with a bag while you were traveling in a minivan to Suva from Nadi few hours after this crime took place,
   
4. This is a crime committed on employees who are exposed to such danger due to the nature of their employment. The victims are employees of a foreign money exchange office. They are required to deal with money and sometimes required to carry money to some other place due to the nature of their employment,. Justice Goundar in Sate v Sasu [2010] FJHC 226; HAC054.2010; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010) has observed that if the victim is vulnerable due to the nature of his employment and attack on such victims must be denounce and condemned without any reservation. Accordingly the main purpose of this sentencing is founded on the principles of deterrence and the protection of the community in order to deter the offenders and other persons from committing offences of this nature. I am mindful of the principle of rehabilitation, however the court must give priority to the principles of the deterrence and protection of the community in order to demonstrate that society has no tolerance for the offenders in this nature.
   
5. Having carefully considered the sentencing practices and guidelines discussed in Basa v Sate ( Criminal Appeal No AAU0024 of 2005 ( 24 March 2006, Sate v Rokonabete & Other ( 2008) FJHC 226; HAC118,2007 ( 15 September 2008), .Sate v Sasu [2010] FJHC 226; HAC054.2010; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010), and State v Manoa ( 2010) FJHC 409; HAC061.2010 ( 6 August 2010), I find the tariff for aggravate robbery is 8 to 14 years of imprisonment period. Having considered the nature of violence, force and the weapons used in this crime, I select 10 years as the starting point for this sentencing.
   
6. I now draw my attention to the aggravating factors of this crime. The both victim were vulnerable due to the nature of their employment as it involves with handling of money. It was established that you and your accomplices came in a car and have covered your faces with masks. It appears that you have planned this crime and waited for the moment, where the victims were not in a position to alarm or seek assistance, then carried out your criminal plan without any respect to the law and order of the country. The value of the property that you have stolen is very high.
   
7. The learned counsel for the accused person submitted that you are 39 years old and married with a 16 years old daughter. Further, she submitted that you cooperated with the police when you were being interviewed. Among other grounds submitted by the learned counsel for your mitigation, she submitted that you are the sole breadwinner of the family and support your elderly parent. I find that you are adversely recorded with number of previous convictions, though I do not consider them as an aggravating factor, but I do not give you any discount for your previous good character.
   
8. Having considered the above mentioned aggravating factors, I increase 4 years to reach 14 years of interim imprisonment period. In considering the mitigating factors which I discussed above, I reduce 2 year to reach the sentence of 12 years. I further reduce 8 months considering the time that you have spent in remand prior to the sentencing. You sentence has now reached to 11 years and 4 months period.
   
9. Accordingly, Mr. Senijieli Boila, I sentence you eleven (11) years and four (4) months imprisonment period for the offence of Aggravate Robbery contrary to section 311 (1) (b) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009. You are not eligible for parole for a period of 9 years pursuant to section 18 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
   
10. 30 days to appeal to Court of Appeal.
    

R. D. R. ThusharaRajasinghe
Judge

At Lautoka
14th of April 2015

Solicitors : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
The Legal Aid Commission, Lautoka Office,