State v Yasa [2012] FJMC 57; Criminal Case45.2012 (17 April 2012)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF NAVUA

Criminal Case HAC No: - 45/2012

STATE

V

PAULIASI YASA

For Prosecution : - Mr. Niudamu
Accused : - In person

SENTENCE

1. You PAULIASI YASA, were convicted by this court, for the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery', which is punishable under Section 311 (1) (b) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009, entailed a punishment up to 20 years of imprisonment.
   
The conviction was entered consequent upon your "plea of guilty' on 20 Feb 201am satisfied that you fully comprehended the legal effects ects and that your plea was voluntary and free from influence.

3. Summary of facts, as admitted by you before the court, revealed that the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery' was committed on Ms. Maria Ranadi on 06 Feb 2012 at Naceva Village, Beqa in the Central Division.
   
4. Further, the summery of facts revealed that you approached the complainant whilst she was walking to her house and robbed her handbag valued at $35.00. At that time you were armed with a cane-knife and threatened the complainant that you would kill her.
   
5. The learned State counsel submitted in his sentencing submission that some of the notable aggravating features of your offending are
   
   1. The accused was armed with a cane knife
   2. This was pre-mediated. The accused was from the same village as the complainant and waited in an empty side of the beach and committed this offence
   3. The victim was vulnerable and you instilled fear and trauma to her by committing this crime
      

In addition this act was committed on a beach near to a resort and therefore in a public place. I take that as an aggravating factor too.

6. The learned state counsel further submitted that following facts could be considered as mitigating factors for your favor,
   
   1. Cooperation with the police,
   2. The property was recovered
   3. Early guilty plea,
   4. Remorse,
      
7. In his sentencing submission the learned counsel brought to my attention tariff for the offence of Aggravate Robbery.
   
8. This is a robbery which was committed at a public place. You approached the victim when she was on her way back home and stole the item mentioned in summery of facts.
   
9. The offence of Aggravated robbery is becoming a serious problem and warranted a great judicial intervention with responsibility. The increasing crime rate in this nature has made the society a vulnerable and insecure place where even an ordinary citizen is not allowed to move freely on the public street. Any person who is stepping into a public place has to think twice of his own safety before he does so.
   
10. I now proceed to consider appropriate sentences on you upon considering the general principle of sentencing under Section 15 (3) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and objective of sentencing under section 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
    
11. The purposes of imposing sentence pursuant to section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree are
    
    • (a) punish offenders to an extent and in a manner which is just in all the circumstance
    • (b) to protect the community from offenders in this nature
    • (c) to deter offenders or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar nature,
    • (d) to establish conditions so that rehabilitation of offenders maybe promoted or facilitated

(e) to signify that the court and the community denounce the commission of such offences

12. His lordship Justice Goundar in State vs Mataiasi Bulivou Susu [2010] FJHC 226; HA2010; HA0; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010) found that organized gang robberies attract the sentence of 8-14 year imprisonment. Her LadyshipJustice Shameem in Seseu v State 2003, FJH, FJHC 224, HAM0043J, 2003S, 10 December 2003) found that the tariff for robbery with violence is 4-7 years. Justice Shameem in Sakiusa Basa vs. the State (Criminal AppeU 24/2005), held that "'Sentences for robberies involving firearms should range from six to eight years. A loange of four to seven years is appropriate where firearms are not used and the premises ares are banks, or shops, post offices or service stations. However, the sentence may be higher where the victim or victims are particularly vulnerable due to age, infirmity, disability or where children are involved. Similarly where injuries are caused in the course of the robbery, a higher sentence will be justified. The value of the property stolen, evidence of planning or premeditation, multiple offences and previous convictions for similar offences should be considered aggravating features. The sentence may be reduced where the offender has no previous convictions, has pleaded guilty and has expressed remorse. This list of aggravating and mitigating features is by no means exhaustive. Furthermore, the sentence will always be adjusted up or down, depending on the facts of the particular case'
    
13. Justice Goundar in Susu's case<160;(supra),pra), has summarized the guiding principles in sentencing in cases involving robbery. They are:' From these authorities, the following principles emerge. The dominant factor in assessing seriousness for any types of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened. The degree of injury to the victim or the nature of and duration of threats are also relevant in assessing the seriousness of an offence of robbery with violence. If a weapon is involved in the use or threat of force that will always be an important aggravating feature. Group offending will aggravate an offence because the level of intimidation and fear caused to the victim will be greater. It may also indicate planning and gang activity. Being the ringleader in a group is an aggravating factor. If the victims are vulnerable, such as elderly people and persons providing public transport, then that will be an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors may include the value of items taken and the fact that an offence was committed whilst the offender was on bail.
    

The seriousness of an offence of robbery is mitigated by factors such as a timely guilty plea, clear evidence of remorse, ready co-operation with the police, response to previous sentences, personal circumstances of the offender, first offence of violence, voluntary return of property taken, playing a minor part, and lack of planning involved.

14. His Lordship Justice Madigan in State v Rasaqio [2010] FJHC 287; HAC 155/2007, observed that the normal range of sentence for robbery with violence is now 10 to 16 years in the High Court.
    
15. In view of above judicial precedents and provisions of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and careful perusal of your mitigation submission, I now draw my attention to determine an appropriate starting point for you. This is a robbery at a public Place. In line with above sentencing guidelines and principles, I select 6 years imprisonment period as a starting point.
    
16. Your act of offence could have the effect of endangering innocent public and their freedom of life. You demonstrated that you have no respect and regard for other's rights and freedom. You completely disregarded the law and order and utilized the vulnerability and insecurity of the victim to carry out your criminal act.
    
17. I now draw my attention to address the mitigating factors in your favors.
    
    1. Asked leniency and forgiveness,
    2. Early guilty plea at the first available opportunity,
    3. Remorseful,
    4. Stolen property was recovered
       
18. In view of aggravating factors mentioned in Para 06 I increase 2 years, to reach the period of 08 years. In considering your early guilty plea I reduce 2 years. You have been in remand custody for 2 months. For that and other mitigating factors I reduce 2 years. Therefore your sentence stands for 4 years.
    
19. In pursuant to s 26(1) (2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree the court cannot suspend a sentence which exceeds more than 2 years. Therefore in this case I do not have to consider whether to suspend your sentence.
    
20. Accordingly I sentence you for 4 years imprisonment period for the offence of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311 (1) (a) of the Crime Decree No 44 of 2009 Furthermore, in pursuant of section 18 (3) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree, you are not eligible for Parole for a period of 2 years.
    
21. Since this court exercising the extended jurisdiction of the High Court in your case, you may appeal against this sentence within 30 days with leave to the Court of Appeal.
    

17/04/2012

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Navua.