State v Togoyawa - Sentence [2021] FJHC 377; HAC098.2021 (13 December 2021)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 098 OF 2021

STATE

V

MANOA LESIYAWA TOGOYAWA

SAIMONI LEDUA RAVATU

Counsel: Mr N Sharma for the State

Both Accused in Person

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

SENTENCE

[1] Manoa Togoyawa (the first Accused) is charged with one count of burglary, one count of aggravated burglary and two counts of theft. (Counts 1-4)

[2] Saimoni Ravatu (the second Accused) is charged with one count of aggravated burglary and one count of theft. (Count 3-4)

[3] Both Accused have pleaded guilty to the charges at the first opportunity after waiving their right to counsel.

[4] The facts are that on 28 March 2021, the first Accused entered into Max Value Supermarket at Rodwell Road as a trespasser with the intention to steal. The supermarket is located at the ground level. Immediately above the supermarket is the Carpenters Finance Office. On the same day he entered the Carpenters Office on two separate occasions. Entry to the Carpenters Office was made through the window and kicking the door open.

[5] The first entry into the Carpenters Office was made by the first Accused at around 5 am. After gaining entry the first Accused stole four laptops valued at $13,100.00 and foreign currencies equivalent of FJD $2,927.00.

[6] The second entry into the Carpenters Office was made on the same day at about 9.38 pm. On this occasio second Accd Accused accompanied the first Accused. While they were inside the Office they were interrupted by a security officerding the premises that night. The security officer noticed that the Office was ransacked aked and that the two Accused were hiding inside. With the assistance of other security officers he apprehended both Accused and handed them to the police. When the police searched the Accused at the station, they found a mobile phone on the first Accused belonging to the Carpenters Finance Ltd.

[7] Both Accused were interviewed under caution. They made full admissions to the police. Only the mobile phone and two laptops were recovered.

[8] All four offences form part of a serious of the same offence committed on one day at the same commercial premises. The principal offence is the aggravated burglary which carries a maximum penalty of 17 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has endorsed a tariff of 18 months imprisonment to 3 years imprisonment for the offence of agted burglary (Leqavuni vuni v State [2016] FJCA 31; AAU0106.2014 (26 February 2016) Kumar v State [2018] FJCA 148; AAU165.2017 (4 October 2018)). The tariff, of course, is a guide to maintain consistency in the approach. The ultimate sentence will depend on the facts of each case.

[9] The nature and the circumstances of the offending are serious. The same commercial office was targeted twice on the same day on a weekend knowing no one will be present. Essential office equipment such as laptops and foreign currencies were stolen from the office. Only two laptops and the mobile phone were recovered. The fircused is liable fore for the loss of the property belonging to the complainant.

[10] The first Accused is the princoffender. He is charged on all four counts. The second Accused accompacompanied the fthe first Accused on the second occasion. However, the stolen mobile phone was found in the first Accused’s possession.

[11] The subjective circumstanc the two Accused are differifferent as well.

[12] The first Accused is 27 years old, single and unemployed. He has five active previous convictions. He is not entitled for any discount for previous good character.

[13] The second Accused is 20 years old and unemployed. But he has his previous good character to mitigate his offending.

[14] Both Accused have pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and have expressed remorse. Their guilty pleas have saved the court’s time and resources. I give the same discount funt for their guilty pleas bearing in mind that they were facing a strong prosecution case. Both were caught inside the premises by a security officer.

[15] I have assessed the first Accused’s overall criminality to be higher than the second Accused. He committed the burglaries twice and is the principal offender.

[16] Apart from the statutory aggravation, the only other aggravating factor is that a large portion of the stolen property had not been recovered – an aggravating factor that I only attribute to the first Accused (Counts 1-2).

[17] For the first Accused, I take an aggregate term of 2 years imprisonment as my starting point for counts 1-4. I add 6 months for the aggravating factor and reduce 6 months for the mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse and saving court’s time and resources).

[18] The first Accused is convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 years imprisonment. I more weight to the princprinciple of deterrence and have decided not to suspend his sentence.

[19] For the second ed, I take an aggregate term of 18 months imprisonment as my starting point for counts 3-4. 3-4. I give him a discount of 9 months for the mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, saving court’s time and resources and previous good character).

[20] The second Accused is convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 months imhs imprisonment. Due to the second Ad’#8217;s young age and previous good character, I give weight to both deterrence and rehabilitation to partially suspend tntence.

[21] The final factor for consideration is the remand period. Both Acch Accused have spent about 9 months in custody on remand.

[22] The remaining term for the first Accused to serve is 15 months imprisonment.

[23] The remaining term for the second Accused (6 months) is suspended for 2 years. [Suspended sentence explained to the second Accused).

[24] The recovered stolen items are returned to the owner, Carpenters Fiji Pte Ltd.

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

Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Both Accused in Person