State v Raiqili [1997] FJLawRp 3; [1997] 43 FLR 13 (22 January 1997)

[1997] 43 FLR 13

HIGH COURT OF FIJI ISLANDS

THE STATE

v

ILIESA RAIQILI

[HIGH COURT, 1997 (Townsley J) 22 January]

Appellate Jurisdiction

Sentence- damaging a religious temple. Penal Code (Cap. 17)ion 324 (1).

The State appealed againsuspended term of imprisonment imposed in the Magistrates’ Court on an offender of pref previous good character who had pleaded y to damaging a religious tous temple. Allowing the Appeal the High Court HELD: that in all the circumstances including an absence of remorse and failure to pay for the damage caused the sentence imposed was manifestly lenient. Accordingly an immediate term of imprisonment was substituted.

No case was cited.Ms N. Shameem (Director of Public Prosecutions) for the Appellant
Respondent in person

l against sentence impo imposed in the Magistrates&#82ourt.b>
Townsley J::

DAMAGING PROP/u>Y: Contrary to Section 324(1) of the Penal Code, 7.

Particulars of Offence

ILIESA RAQA RAQILI, on t on the 4th day of July, 1996 at iudrovu, Nausori in the Cene Central Division, wilfully and unlawfully damaged glass walls valued at $1,000, one (1) door glass value$100, and one (1) Hanuman cman concrete statue valued at $1,000, to the total value of $2,100, the property of Vuniniudrovu Ramayan Mandali Temple.

The trate sentenced thed the Respondent, (who was of clear record, aged 25 years, and a Methodist Church missionary) to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

The Magistrate was to me commended for the very relevant and meaningful admonishment he delivered to the Respondent.

Police had earlier alleged that the Respondent had tened he would do the same to other temples and sought an adan adjournment, and a remand in custody.

The Magistrate decid deal with the Respondent forthwith, and facts were read ouad out to show that at 5 a.m. that very morning, the Respondent with a ould” (according to the State a kind of hammer or mallet) damaged all the temple door doors and smashed a concrete statue to pieces.

When police qoned the Rthe Respondent, he told them that the Holy Spirit told him to damage the temples (plural) and the idols. He said he had destroyed the first temple, and he would destroy other temples. The damage had caused concern to the local Indian community.

The Respondent is recorded as having admitted those facts, yet in a few short moments in mitigation he denied saying that “I will continue damaging the Indian temple.” He said “The God will pay them.1;

It should huld have bppn apparent to the Magistrate that he had a serious religious fanatic on his hands. His denial of intention to harm other temples did not have to be accepted.

It may be appropriate to record here what the Respondent said before me when asked for argument as to why the State’s appeal should not be allowed against the suspension of his sce, and why he should not serve the term of imprisonment imnt imposed.

He said “Yo jail jail me or hang me (lower lip quivering) - it was written in the Bible.” I interjected, “Doesn’t the Bible teach love even for your enem good to them that hate you, and so on?” The Respondepondent said, “The Old Testament I rely on - the 10 Commandments - no strange gods before me. The Lord tells me to tell them not to worship idols.” I asked: Any reason why you shouldn’t do the 12 months’ imprisonment? The Respondent said: “Only that the Lord answers my prayer everyday.” I asked: “What about paying the $2,100 to the people whose property you have damaged?” Respondent: “I don’t know anything about it.”

There was thus no remoase, and no intention whatever of making reparation for his wrong, or even any admission that he had done any wrong.

The that he was actualltually supposedly a full time missionarthe Methodist Church I rega regarded as an aggravating factor if anything, in that he would be spreading his message of hate and intoce to others.

;
I woupe that that that Church would have withdrawn his credentials by now, and have helped him to get some psychiatric treatment while in gaol, pursuant to my recommendation.

But to return e law, anw, and the State’s argument that to suspend the sentence was an error, and made the punishment manifestly inadequate.
Ms Shameem, who appearedthe State, presented written submissions which were elegantegantly framed and quite unanswerable.

I uphold them in theirrentirety and can only commend the sentencing Magistrate to read them, for his education in the law.

Ms Shameem, in argu str, stressed how serious the matter was by pointing to Section 298 of the Penal Code, where breaking and entering a place of divine worship and commitommitting a felony therein carries a penal 14 years.

The Responden fortunateunate, theretherefore, that what he did inside the temple was only a misdemeanour. It carried a 2-year maximum.

It went beyonbeyond a mere criminal offence, she argued and violated the constitutional rights of the worshippers at the temple.

Ms Shameem went on gue rgue that previous char could not accounccount for the suspension of the sentence.ence. That had already been allowed for in the reduction of the sentence fhe maximum of 2 years imprisonment to 1 year.

;
She red to Thomas on2&#82inciples of Sentencitencing” 2nd ed. p.199 where it is said that having no previous conviction would not warrant a suspension of a sentence, onleductn the sentenentence.

She alsorred toed to thto the the same text at p.174 for the proposition that in wilful damage cases, imprisonment is warranted where no significant mitigation existed (as is the case here).
Ms Shameem argued there here was strong public interest in the imposition of a custodial sentence in the present case.

Arestin, which Ms ShameShameem also pressed for, I felt that that its failure to be paid, and the intransigence of the Respondent in nnting to even know about it, was reflected in the 12 months’ immediate custodial sent sentence, and made it more appropriate, considering it is half the maximum penalty that can be imposed.

The Court’s oras was as follows:-

Thee’s Appeal is l is allowed. The Court is satisfied the Magistrate’s sentence was manifestly inadequate or lenie suspg the custodial sentence for no good reason. The The absence of remorse or any offer of reof restitution was a plainly aggravating factor.

The Magistra217;s sentesentence is varied by deleting the suspension for 2 years so that the Respondent will go to gaol for 12 months. I would recommend psychiatric treatment.

(Appeal allowed; ncetence varied.)