State v Bokadi [2012] FJMC 303; CF11.2012 (21 November 2012)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT SUVA

Criminal Case No. 11/2012

THE STATE

–v-

PONIPATE BOKADI

For the State: WPC Fisher
For the Accused: Present in Person

SENTENCE

1. Charge

PONIPATE BOKADI, you have pleaded Guilty to the following Charge:

Theft: contrary to section 291 (1) of the Crimes Decree No.44 of 2009 and Particulars of offence is as follows; That;

On the 25th day of December, 2011 at Lami, in the Central Division, dishonestly appropriated (stole) 1 x Akita Digital Video Deck valued $59.00, the property of TEVITA BALEIWAI.

2. The Summary of the Facts was outlined to you and you have admitted the same therefore you are convicted as charged.

I am satisfied that all of you fully comprehended the legal effects and that your pleas were voluntary and free from influence.

3. Mitigating Factors and Personal Background:

The learned counsel from Legal Aid Commission, who appeared for, tendered a well detailed mitigation submission with your personal back ground on your behalf as follows seeking a non custodial sentence for you.That you are;

- 20 years of age and single

-Reside at Delainavesi settlement with older brother

- Currently unemployed

- Were under influence of liquor when committed the offence

-Remorseful and fully cooperated with the police.

4. Aggravating Factors

According to the information revealed by the Summary of Facts placed before Court this is an act of opportunity and dishonesty. Accused was under influence of liquor which aggravates the situation.

5. Law

According to section 291 (1) of the Crimes Decree No.44 of 2009; A person commits a summary offence if he or she dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the property.

The offence of theft carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

Tariff

It was held in Tikoitoga v State (2008,FJHC 44, HAM 088 2007)The Tariff for larceny is 18 months to 2 years. Justice Daniel Gounder held in State v Vatunalaba (2010, FJHC 99; HAC 134.2008) that the tariff for theft offences arising from breach of trust range from 18 months to 3 years imprisonment. Suspended sentences are reserved for cases where the offenders have shown remorse or the value of the property is small.

7. Sentence

In sentencing you the Court acknowledges the factors:

i. Pleaded Guilty at the first available opportunity to save the Court's time and Prosecution's time in calling witnesses for a full trial

ii. Previous good character.

iii. Remorseful for actions

Bearing in mind summery of fact in this offence, I now proceed to determine an appropriate sentence for you considering the Sentencing Guidelines under section 4 (1) and (2) and General Sentencing Provisions under section 15(3) ) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.

In Sentencing the Accused, I note that he is a first offender and a young offender. I also note that the stolen Akita Digital Video Deck was recovered therefore the complainant has not suffered any loss, therefore a sentence of imprisonment at this stage is not warranted. In all the circumstances of this case, I am of a view that you should be given another chance to reform yourself to a good individual away from a custodial sentence; a bond will suffice although your conviction will stand in pursuant to section 44 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree No. 44 of 2009.

PONIPATE BOKADI, You are ordered to enter into a bond for the sum of $1, 000 to be bound over to this Court for the period of 01 year ( 21-11-12 to 22-11-12) to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
If you honour this bond then at the end of the bond period of 06 months you will be discharged and you retain your clean record. The bond will be explained to you as well as the consequences of any breach.
In addition I order that the, recovered items which is in police custody is to be returned to the owner.

28 days to appeal

--------------------------
Lakshika Fernando
Resident Magistrate
On this 21st day of November 2012.