State v Qiodravu - Sentence [2021] FJHC 375; HAC105.2021 (13 December 2021)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 105 OF 2021

STATE

V

SOLOMONE QIODRAVU

Counsel: Mr N Sharma for the State

Ms A Singh for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 7 December 2021
Date of Sentence: 13 December 2021

SENTENCE

[1] The Accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery. The nature of the robbery is street mugging.

[2] The victim is a 17-year old male. The incident occurred on the evening of 27 March 2021 at Tuirara. The victim and his two friends went to a corner shop near his home. While they were returning home they were attacked by two I-taukei boys. One of the attackers grabbed the victim by the neck and when the victim resisted, the attackers punched him several times and the victim fell down on the ground. They pressed the victim’s head facing the ground to prevent him from recognizing him but the victim was able to recognize the Accused as one of the youths from his area. They grabbed the victim’s wallet containing $23.00 cash and fled the scene.

[3] The Accused was arrested and interviewed under caution. He made full admissions but refused to disclose the identity of his accomplice.

[4] The victim was medically examined. He did not sustain any visible injuries but his cheek was painful upon touch.

[5] The statutory aggravation is that the robbery was committed in the company of another. The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence is 20 years imprisonment. The offence is objectively serious.

[6] However, I also have to consider the seriousness of the actual conduct of the Accused. Thure of the robbery is a is a single episode of street mugging.

[7] In Raqauqau v State [2008] FJCA 34; AAU0100.2007 (4 August 2008) the Court of Appeal has provided the following guidelines for street mugging at [12]:

1. The sentencing bracket was 18 months or 5 years, but the upper limit of 5 years might not be appropriate ‘if the offences are committed by an offender who has a number of previous convictions and if there is a substantial degree of violence, or if there is a particularly large number of offences committed’.
   
2. An offence would be more serious if the victim was vulnerable because of age (whether elderly or young), or if it had been carried out by a group of offenders.
   
3. The fact that offences of this nature were prevalent was also to be treated as an aggravating feature.
   

[8] The Accused is 20 years old and unemployed. His youth, previous good character and early guilty plea are strong mitigating factors. The guilty plea has saved the court’s time and resources. His confession and early guilty plea indicate that he is genuinely remorseful. These are strong mitigating factors.

[9] The aggravating factors are that the victim was a child and that physical violence was inflicted on him.

[10] I use 2 years imprisonment as my starting point and add 2 years to reflect the aggravating factors. I give a discount of 2 years for the mitigating factors.

[11] I have a discretion to suspend the sentence but have decided not to do so. The offence is objectively serious. Physical violence was inflicted on a child victim. The offence is prevalent and is mostly committed by youths. In these circumstances, the need for deterrence overrides the need to rehabilitate the offender.

[12] The court’s duty is to protect the public from street muggers. A non-custodial option is only available if there are special circumstances.

[13] The Accused is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

[14] The final factor for consideration is the Accused’s remand period. He has already spent about 9 months in custody on remand.

[15] The remaining term for the Accused to serve is 1 year and 3 months imprisonment.

. ...........................................

Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Legal Aid Commission for the Accused