IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 393 of 2019

STATE

V

SEMI CAGI CAUCAU

Appearances	:	Ms. Kantharia. B for the State
	:	Mr. Romanu. I for the Accused

Sentence	:	06 April 2022

SENTENCE
1.	Semi Cagi Caucau, you appear for sentencing after pleading guilty to a count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act of 2009, and after expressing agreement with the State’s summary of facts.  I am satisfied your plea was voluntary and informed, as was your confirmation of the contents of the summary of facts filed and read in Court.  I find you guilty and convict you accordingly.  

2.	The facts admitted are that the Complainant had been walking along the street when you and another male snatched her handbag from off her shoulder and ran off.  A lady who was walking along the same street knew you by name and identified you.  She informed the Police that she had seen you as you were running towards her, holding a lady’s brown handbag tucked under your left arm.  She had also seen another iTaukei boy following you but she did not know this other person.  

3.	When interviewed by the Police, you had admitted involvement in the offence but said it was the other person who had snatched the handbag and that you had taken the purse and used the $50 inside it to buy alcohol.

Maximum penalty
4.	The offence of aggravated robbery carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.  

Tariff
5.	The tariff depends on the nature and gravity of the offending.  

6.	In the most serious bracket is offending forming part of a spate of robberies involving invasions of homes and substantial violence.  The tariff for these types of aggravated robberies is 10 – 16 years imprisonment. (Nawalu v State Criminal Appeal No. CAV0012/2012, Decision of 28 August 2013 at [27]-[29]; Wise v State Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No: CAV0004/2015, Decision of 24 April 2015 at [3]; also State v Vatunicoko Criminal Case No. HAC 210 of 2018, Decision of 21 September 2018 at [4]).

7.	Single home invasion types of aggravated robberies at night, with violence, have a sentencing tariff of 8-16 years.  (Wise, supra, at [3] and [25], and; Vatunicoko (supra) at [4]).

8.	Sentences for aggravated robbery with low level physical violence on a person or persons on the street (street mugging) range from 18 months – 5 years imprisonment.  In Qalivere v State Criminal Appeal No. AAU 71 of 2017 Decision of 27 February 2020 at [16], the Court of Appeal stated:
Low threshold robbery, with or without less physical violence, is sometimes referred to as street-mugging informally in common parlance. The range of sentence for that type of offence was set at eighteen months to five years by the Fiji Court of Appeal in Raqauqau’s case (supra).
9.	An accused with a number of previous convictions committing a number of offences with a substantial degree of violence would take the sentence outside the upper limit of 5 years in this category of street mugging cases.  (Raqauqau v State Criminal Appeal No.: AAU0100 of 2007, Decision of 4 August 2008 at [12].  

10.	Most recently in Rajit Singh & Ramnik Chand v State Criminal Appeal No. AAU 0049 of 2017, Decision of 3 March 2022, Prematilaka JA (with whose judgment Gamalath and Bandara JJA concurred) stated at [30]:

The state counsel informed this court at the hearing that the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an appeal in the coming full court session where the DPP has sought a guideline judgment on aggravated robbery cases.  Therefore, until the Supreme Court sets down new sentencing guidelines, if any, on street mugging cases or any other forms of aggravated robbery cases, I am inclined to adopt the sentencing tariff of 18 months to 05 years for street mugging cases (set in Raqauqau) as the Court of Appeal did Qalivere.  

11.	The offending in this case falls within the “street mugging” category.  The tariff of 18 months – 5 years imprisonment therefore applies.  

12.	In assessing the objective seriousness of your offending, I bear in mind the maximum penalty and sentencing tariff for this offence.   In sentencing you, I also bear in mind the sentencing guidelines in section 4 and section 15 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act of 2009.  

13.	The Court in Vatunicoko (supra) opined that the Courts have a duty to deter and denounce anti-social violent behavior against innocent members of the public, with special and general deterrence being the primary purposes of the punishment for crimes involving violence.  

14.	The violence in your offending was minimal.  

15.	You are a young first time offender.  You have no previous convictions and are therefore a person of previous good character.  Your young age and clean record are to your credit.  You initially pleaded not guilty and the matter was fixed for trial.  The trial did not proceed and subsequently, you changed your plea to guilty and admitted the summary of facts.  Though entered belatedly, this plea has saved the time and resources of the Court and also of the State.  

16.	Apart from the elements of the offence which are inherent in the charge, there does not seem to be any aggravating features of your offending except perhaps some degree of planning between you and the second person not before the Court, to rob the Complainant.  

17.	A substantial reduction to your sentence is made on account of the mitigating factors in your favor, namely your youth, previous clean record, and your admission to being involved in the offending when interviewed by the Police.  Your guilty plea entered belatedly in the proceedings also warrants a further reduction to your sentence, though not the 1/3 discount ordinarily given to early guilty pleas.  

18.	For all of the above, I sentence you to 18 months imprisonment.

19.	You have been in remand in this matter for a period of 19 months and 6 days and, having effectively served out your sentence in remand, I order that you be released forthwith and without delay.

20.	30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Siainiu Bull
ACTING JUDGE

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
MIQ Lawyers for the Accused