IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: -345/2012

STATE

V

IOWANE BENEDITO
MATAIASI NAVUGONA
SANILA TABUVUIA

Counsels: Mr. Fotofili for the State 

 Ms.David for the 1s t and the 2nd accused. 

SENTENCE
 
1.	The accused are charged in this Court for the following offences. 

Count 1
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: contrary to Section 311()(a)of the Crimes Decree 2009.

Particulars of Offence
IOWANE BENEDITO, MATAIASI NAVUGONA and SANAILA TABUAVULA together with others on the 22nd day of February 2012 at Suva in the Central Division, robbed namely by using force on VIJAY CHAND before dishonestly appropriating cash of $70 and taxi registration number LT4814 valued at $8,500 the property of VIJAY CHAND, with the intention of permanently depriving VIJAY CHAND of the said property.

Count 2
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: contrary to Section 311(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree 2009.

Particulars of Offence
IOWANE BENEDITO, MATAIASI NAVUGONA and SANAILA TABUAVULA together with others on the 22nd day of February 2012 at Suva in the Central Division, robbed namely by using force on RICHARD RAMENDRA PRASAD before dishonestly appropriating cash of $400 and cash register or till valued at $2,000 the property of NIPPON TRADING LTD, with the intention of permanently depriving NIPPONS TRADING LTD of the said property.

Count 3
DRIVING MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A LICENCE: contrary to Section 56(3)(a) and 56 (6) and 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Particulars of Offence
IOWANE BENEDITO on the 22nd day of February 2012 at Suva in the Central Division drove a motor vehicle registration number LT 4814 without being a holder of a Fiji driver’s licence.

Count 4
ESCAPING FROM LAWFUL CUSTODY: contrary to Section 196 of the Crimes Decree 2009.

Particulars of Offence
IOWANE BENEDITO on the 29th day of February 2012 at Suva in the Central Division, being in the lawful custody of DC 4325 TONI NASOGA, escaped from the said lawful custody.

2.	The 1st accused pleaded guilty for all the offences whilst the 2nd accused pleaded guilty for two counts of Aggravated Robbery. The 3rd accused has pleaded not guilty .

3.	Basically summary of facts states that the 1st and the 2nd accused with two others hired a taxi of Vijay Chand and at Wairua Road robbed his taxi and cash of $70. Later they came to a shop managed by Mr. Patel and stole the cash register valued at $2000 and the cash of $400 in that. One of the accused also threatened a staff with a knife while the cash register was taken away. The 1st accused was arrested on 29/02/2014 but escaped from the custody while escorted to Totoga cell block and was re-arrested on 02/03/2014. The 1st accused also drove the stolen taxi and at that time he did not have a valid licence. These facts were admitted by the 1st and the 2nd accused in the Court. 

4.	I am satisfied about the pleas of the 1st and the 2nd accused and convict them for the two counts of Aggravated Robbery. In addition the 1st accused is also convicted for one count of Driving Motor vehicle without a licence and one count of Escaping from Lawful Custody. 

 LAW AND TARIFF 
5.	Maximum penalty for the offence of Aggravated Robbery is 20 years imprisonment. 

6.	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”.

7.	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'

8.	The tariff for the violent robbery of Taxi drivers is a sentence between 4-10 years imprisonment, depending on the force used or threatened. ( State v Tamani [2011] FJHC 725; Joji Seseu v State [2003] )

9.	The maximum penalty for Driving without a licence is $200/30 days imprisonment . The prescribed penalty for Escaping from the Lawful Custody is 02 years imprisonments and in Tuibua v State [2008] FJHC tariff was decided as 6-12 months imprisonment. 

Aggravating factors
10.	Following will be considered as aggravating factors for the 1st and the 2nd counts .

I.	The first offence was committed against a public service provider
II.	Use of a offensive weapon during the second robbery
III.	Disregard of the property rights of the other people. 

Mitigating factors
11.	Mitigating factors in your favor are as follows;

1st accused 
I.	27 years old 
II.	Single 
III.	Seeks forgiveness 
IV.	First offender 

 2nd accused 
I.	23 years old 
II.	Single 
III.	Seeks forgiveness 

12.	Considering the facts in this case for both accused I select 06 years as my starting point for the two counts of Aggravated Robbery and add 03 years for aggravating factors to reach 09 years. For the mitigating factors deduct 02 years and saving the Court's time and resources by pleading guilty I further deduct 02 years to reach 05 years imprisonment. 

13.	Both accused were in remand for following period. 
 1st accused- 2 years 07 months
 2nd accused- 1 year 

14.	As stipulated in section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree I deduct the above periods from the two accused to reach 02 year 05 months for the 1st accused and 04 years for the 2nd accused . Considering all the facts I also sentenced the 1st accused to 10 days imprisonment for the 3rd count and 06 months imprisonment to the 4th count. Considering totality principle all these to be concurrent to each other. 

15.	In State v Patrick Fong [FJHC 10/2004] his Lordship Justice Gates  (as he then was ) said,

'Much has been said of attacks on taxi  drivers . The court has concluded that the need for harsh deterrent sentences to protect taxi  drivers, and the transport facility they provide for the public, far outweighs the personal mitigating circumstances of unthinking or alienated young men: Peni Raiwalui v The State (unreported) Suva Crim. App. No. HAA030.03S, 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".

16.	Again in Vilikesa Koroivuata v The State(supra) Justice Gates said:

"Violent and armed robberies of taxi drivers are all too frequent. The taxi industry serves this country well. It provides a cheap vital link in short and medium haul transport... The risk of personal harm they take every day by simply going about their business can only be ameliorated by harsh deterrent sentences that might instill in prospective muggers the knowledge that if they hurt or harm a taxi driver, they will receive a lengthy term of imprisonment". 

17.	In State v Kotobalavu & others HAC 43/2012 his Lordship Justice Madigan after citing Tagicaki & another HAA 019.2010, Vilikeas (supra) observed: 

"Violent robberies of transport providers (be they taxi, bus or van drivers) are not crimes that should result in non-custodial sentences, despite the youth or good prospects of the perpetrators...."

Summary 
18.	I sentenced the two accused as follows. 

1st accused 
1st count- 02 years 05 months imprisonment
2nd Count- 02 years 05 months imprisonment 
3rd Count- 10 days imprisonment
4th Count- 06 months imprisonment concurrent to each other. 

2nd accused 
1st count- 04 years imprisonment 
2nd count- 04 years imprisonment concurrent to each other 

19.	For the 2nd accused I also fix a non- parole period of 02 years and for the 1st accused this will be 01 year. 

20.	Since this court is 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. 

29th of October 2014 

H.S.P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva