State v Momotu [2014] FJMC 103; Criminal Case 30.2012 (13 June 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: -30/2012 (EJ18/2012)

STATE

V

TIMOCI MOMOTU

WPC Kalara for the Prosecution
Accused in Person

SENTENCE

1. TIMOCI MOMOTU , you were convicted after a trial for following offence .
   

Count 1

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: contrary to Section 311(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

TIMOCI MOMOTU with another, on the 8th day of January 2012 at Olga Place, Suva in the Central Division stole $54.00 cash, 1 x Alcatel phone valued at $30.00 and 1 x taxi meter valued at $270.00; all to the total value of $354.00 from MOHAMMED KASIN.

2. It was revealed in the trial that on 08th January 2012 you with two others robbed a taxi at Olga Place . You stole the mobile and the wallet of the driver ( Mohomaed kasim).
   

LAW AND TARIFF

3. Maximum penalty for the offence of Aggravated Robbery is 20 years imprisonment.
   
4. His Lordship Justice Goundar in State v Manoa [2010] FJHC 409; observed:
   

"The maximum penalty for robbery with violence under the Penal Code is life imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery under the Crimes Decree is 20 years imprisonment. Although the maximum sentence under the Decree has been reduced to 20 years imprisonment, in my judgment, the tariff of 8 to 14 years imprisonment established under the old law can continue to apply under the new law. I hold this for two reasons. Firstly, the established tariff of 8 to 14 years under the old law falls below the maximum sentence of 20 years under the new law. Secondly, under the new law, aggravated robbery is made an indictable offence, triable only in the High Court, which means the Executive's intention is to treat the offence seriously".

5. In Sakiusa Basa vs. the State (Criminal Appeal AAU 24/2005), her Ladyship Justice Shameem held that:
   

"'Sentences for robberies involving firearms should range from six to eight years. A lower range of four to seven years is appropriate where firearms are not used and the premises 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'

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

6. Following are aggravating factors in this case.
   
   1. This was committed against a public service provider
   2. Disregard of the property rights of other people.
      

MITIGATING FACTORS

7. You submitted following as mitigating factors.
   
   1. 27 years old
   2. Married with 04 children
   100. Mobile phone recovered
   4. Wife pregnant
      
8. Considering the facts in this case I select 06 years as my starting point and add 03 years for aggravating factors to reach 09 years. For your mitigating factors I deduct 04 years to reach 05 years imprisonment. You are not a first offender and not entitled for discount for your past good behavior.
   
9. You were in custody for nearly 05 months and pursuant to section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree I deduct that period to reach 04 years and 07 months imprisonment. .
   
10. In State v Patrick Fong [FJHC 10/2004] his Lordship Justice Gate0; (as he was then)then) said,

'Much has been said of attacks on taxi driveThe churt has concludncluded that the need for harsh deterrent sentences to protect taxi driverd the transport fty fty thovide for the public, far outweighs the personal mitigating circumstances of unth unthinkininking or alienated young men: Peni Rai v Thte (unreported) Suva Crim. App. No. HAA030.0330.03S, 12S, 12 November 2003; Vilikesa Koroivuata v The State (unreported) Cr. App. HAA064.04S, 20 August 2004; State v Charles Marvick, (unreported) Suva Cr. Case No. HAC027.028.04S 19 October 2004.

11. Therefore you are sentenced to 04 years and 07 months imprisonment for the offence of Aggravated Robbery with a non- parole period of 03 years.
    
12. Since this court is exercising the extended jurisdiction of the High Court case, the parties may appeal against this sentence within 30 days with leave to the Court of Appeal.

13th June 2014

H.S.P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate