State v Roraqio - Sentence [2021] FJHC 376; HAC102.2021 (13 December 2021)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 102 OF 2021

STATE

V

SUNIA RORAQIO
SECI VESIKULA

Counsel: Mr E Samisoni for the State

1^st Accused in person

Ms R Nabainivalu for the 2^nd Accused

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

SENTENCE

[1] Both Accused have pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and theft.

[2] The offences were committed during the Easter weekend between 2 April 2021 and 4 April 2021 at Wailoku, Suva. During this weekend a couple (the victims) left their home unoccupied to spend their weekend on an island. When they returned home they found their house was ransacked and items stolen. Entry to the house was gained through the window after bending the burglar grill. The intruders stole electronic devices, jewellery and cash to a total value of about $12,000. After stealing, the intruders drove away in the victim’s vehicle.

[3] Sunia Roraqio (the first Accused) went on a spending spree with his partner after committing the offence. When the police arrested him, he made no admissions.

[4] The second Accused made full admissions to the police. He also assisted the police to recover some of the stolen electronic devices from a third party. The stolen vehicle was recovered as well.

[5] Aggravated burglary is punishable by 17 years imprisonment while theft is punishable by 10 years imprisonment. In this case, both offences form part of the same transaction. Burglary is the precursor to theft. The statutory aggravation is that the burglary was committed in the company of another. The offence is objectively serious. The tariff for a single aggravated burglary range from 18 months imprisonment to 3 years imprisonment (Leqavuni v State [2016] FJCA 31; AAU0106.2014 (26 February 2016); Kumar v State [2018] FJCA 148; AAU165.2017 (4 October 2018)).

[6] The aggravating factors are that a dwelling home was burgled, the home was ransacked and the total value of the stolen items is high although the vehicle and some electronic devices have been recovered.

[7] It is clear from the facts tendered in support of the charges that the first Accused is the principal offender. He is the mastermind behind the offence. He executed the entry to the house according to his plan. The second Accused had a secondary role. He was a follower, following instructions of the first Accused.

[8] The subjective features of the two Accused are different. The first Accused is 32 years old and unemployed. He has 10 previous convictions and his recent relevant convictions include theft and robbery. He submits that he is married with two children and is remorseful for his conduct.

[9] The second Accused is 19 years old, single and unemployed. He is a first time offender and is remorseful for his conduct.

[10] I pick the same starting point for both Accused based on the objective seriousness of the offence.

[11] For the first Accused I use an aggregate term of 2 years imprisonment as my starting point, add 1 year for his principal role and aggravating factors and deduct 6 months for his mitigating factors (i.e. early guilty plea and saving court’s time and resources).

[12] The first Accused is convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 ½ years’ imprisonment. I have considered and decided not to suspend the sentence of the first Accused. For his sentence I give weight to the principle of deterrence. Special deterrence is relevant because of the first Accused’s past criminal record. General deterrence is relevant because the crime of burglary is prevalent in our community.

[13] For the second Accused I use an aggregate term of 2 years imprisonment as my starting point and add 6 months for the aggravating factors and deduct 12 months for the mitigating factors (i.e. youth, early guilty plea, saving court’s time and resources and previous good character).

[14] The second Accused is convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 months imprisonment. I have considered suspension and have decided to partially suspend the sentence to give the Accused an opportunity to rehabilitate.

[15] Both Accused have already served about 8 months in custody on remand.

[16] For the first Accused the remaining term for him to serve is 1 year and 10 months imprisonment.

[17] For the second Accused his remaining term of 10 months imprisonment is suspended for 2 years. [Suspended sentence explained to the Accused].

[18] Recovered stolen items are restored to the owner.

. ...........................................
Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
1^st Accused in person
Legal Aid Commission for the 2^nd Accused