State v Ramarama [2012] FJMC 340; Criminal Action 857.2012 (10 December 2012)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Action No: 857/12

THE STATE

V

NAOMI RAMARAMA

Prosecution : Cpl Reddy, Police Prosecutor.
Accused : Ms Lagilevu. L.

SENTENCE

1. You Naomi Ramarama are here today to be sentenced following the admission of guilt on your own accord and free will in this Court on 06.08.2012 for committing the offences of 'Produce of False or Misleading Documents' and 'Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' contrary to sections 335 and 318 of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
   
2. The synopsis of agreed facts states that the offence was committed during the period of 04.09.2010 and 17.09.2011. The second offence was committed on 04.10.2011.
   
3. You submitted a false document to the Native Land Trust Board on Mataqali Daunivurevure meeting minutes as genuine. The document reflected that you and other two members of the clan had been appointed as signatories by the head of Mataqali and the appointment was made on the approval and consent by 60% of its members. The document was submitted as a part of regulatory requirements implemented by the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB).
   
4. Thereafter the NLTB released Mataqali Daunivurevure lease money to the ANZ bank account number 10804545. You as the signatory then withdrew the money from the bank in order to distribute among others. The amount was $ 6,800. It appears that you have distributed these monies among the members. But some later claimed that they did not receive the full share.
   
5. Then the matter came to light and a report was lodged. You were arrested by the police and interviewed under caution. You made formal admissions to the alleged offence.
   
6. Having considered the agreed facts the Court convicts you for each count of the charge sheet.
   
7. The punishment for 'Produce of False or Misleading Documents' is 5 years. And 'Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. There are no guideline judgments for the offence of 'Produce of False or Misleading Documents'.
   
8. In the case of State v Atil Sharma HAC 122 of 2010L Hon. Justice Madigan identified a tariff of 2 to 5 years for the cases of 'Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception'.
   
9. The Court notes that you produced this misleading document and later obtained money, from the sole institution of the country to facilitate and protect the rights of the Native iTaukei lands. Therefore it cannot be considered as a trivial offence.
   
10. The Court therefore takes 1 year and 2 years as the respective starting points for the two counts.
    
11. It was stated that the document provided to the NLTB and reception of money affected to the community of Mataqali Daunivurevure. Therefore it is not a matter of affecting to a single person's rights. The Court notes that this is an aggravating circumstance of your offence and it will be common for both counts.
    
12. The sentence of each count is increased by another year to reflect the aggravating factor. Now the sentence stands at 2 years (for count 1) and 3 years (for count 2).
    
13. Your early guilty plea to save Court's time and resources takes one third of your sentence off. I will now reduce 8 months from the first count and 12 months from the second count for your timely plea. Therefore your sentence for count 1 remains at 1 year 4 months and second count at 2 years.
    
14. Submitted personal circumstances states that you are 60 year old; working as a house maid; caregiver of an extended family with 5 members. Further you did not evade legal process and the investigations but co-operated with them.
    
15. Further concession of 6 months given from each sentence in order to reflect your personal circumstances.
    
16. That leaves your final sentence for count one at 10 months and count two at 1 ½ years.
    
17. The Court has powers under the Sentencing and Penalties Decree 2009 to suspend any imprisonment term less than 2 years. You submitted that you are a first offender. As a senior citizen of the country the Court has to consider your unblemished character maintained for 60 years before committing this offence. And the prosecution submits that you distributed the money among the lawful owners of the said money.
    
18. On the other hand it is important to deter offenders who affect adversely on the institutions of national interest such as NLTB.
    
19. It is to be noted that suspended sentence is also considered as a term of imprisonment. The difference is that the offender serves the sentence while attending to his day to day work. The offender is bound for not to commit any other offence during the operational period. Any subsequent find of guilt will result him or her to serve the sentence which was suspended by the Court. It can also be considered as a period of rehabilitation to a first offender, where the Court and the law enforcement authorities will have constant monitor.
    
20. Having considered your age and other circumstances this Court concludes that a suspended sentence is most appropriate in this instance.
    
21. Accordingly Naomi Ramarama your final sentence states as follows,
    

Count 1 - 10 months imprisonment,

Count 2 - 1 ½ years imprisonment,

• Both sentence to run concurrently,
• Each sentence is suspended for 2 years.
  

22. As stated early, any breach of the suspended sentence would be a ground for a separate prosecution against you.
    
23. Twenty eight [28] days to appeal.
    

Pronounced in open Court,

Yohan Liyanage
Resident Magistrate

10th December 2012