State v Navugona [2014] FJMC 170; Criminal Case 342.2012 (22 December 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: -342/2012

STATE

V

MATAIASI NAVUGONA

Counsel : Mr. Fotofili for the State
The accused in person

SENTENCE

1. The accused is charged in this Court for the following offence;
   

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

Particulars of Offence

MATAIASI NAVUGONA and others, on the 27th day of February 2012 at Suva in the Central Division, being armed with an offensive weapon namely pinch bar and cane knife, threatened HANSERUE FATIAKI the cashier and stole assorted recharge cards valued at $500.00 and $1,200.00 cash all to the total value of $1,700.00 the property of 786 Supermarket.

2. The accused through a legal aid counsel informed that he wanted to take a progressive approach and therefore the charge was read back to him and he pleaded guilty.
   
3. Summary of facts states as follows:
   

786 Supermarket is located at Amy Street, Toorak in Suva. Hanserue Fatiaki and a few others work at the Supermarket as cashiers. On 27.02.12 at around 7pm, the staff were surprised by a man wearing a pompom or beanie who walked into the shop with a knife telling everyone not to move. The man was accompanied by another male who was armed with a pinch bar. Another man was standing near the door of the supermarket. The man who was armed with the cane knife demanded money from Hanserue Fatiaki and then climbed over her cashier counter. The man armed with the pinch bar warned everyone in the shop to keep their distance. Hanserue Fatiaki was so scared that she ran away from the counter allowing the man with the cane knife to grab hold of the cash register and "slammed" it against the counter opening it. Then both the man carrying the cane knife and the man armed with the pinch bar then took out the cash from the opened cash register which was $1,200 and recharge cards valued at $500 and left the Supermarket. The men then boarded a taxi and drove off.

Police conducted their investigations and managed to arrest the defendant Mataiasi Navugona as a suspect at Nadera, Nasinu on 28.02.12 and the defendant was then taken into police custody for questioning.

On 29.02.14 at the Valelevu Police Station, the defendant Mataiasi Navugona was interviewed under caution by police during which he gave his answers voluntarily. The defendant voluntarily confessed that he with 3 others went to 786 Supermarket in a vehicle where one of them will wait with the vehicle whilst the others would go inside the supermarket (ans. to ques. 56). The defendant and 2 others then went to the supermarket. The other 2 were armed with a cane knife and a pinch bar whilst he (the defendant) took a sack containing a pinch bar with him to the supermarket (ans. to ques. 57 – 59). The defendant admitted that when inside the supermarket one of them showed the cane knife to one of the cashier and took out the money and recharge cards. The defendant was "covering" or providing cover to the others whilst the money was taken out of the cash register or till (ans. ques. 61). They then left the supermarket in the same vehicle they brought and shared the money. He received $150 as his share and with the money they bough beer (ans. to ques. 72 – 74). The defendant cooperated with police and showed police the supermarket that he and others went to on 27.02.12 amongst other things.

4. I am satisfied that the accused plea was unequivocal and convict him for this charge.
   

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 State v Lasarus Kotobalavu (HAC 43 of 2010) his Lordship Justice Madigan adopted the same tariff.
   

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

8. Following are aggravating factors in this case
   
   1. Group offending
   2. Disregard of the property rights of the other people.
   3. Pre- planning
      

MITIGATING FACTORS

9. The migrating factor are young offender, co-operated with the police, was playing a minor part in this offence and saving the Court's tome by pleading guilty.
   
10. Considering the facts in this case I select 08 years as my starting point this offence add 03 years for aggravating factors to reach 11 years. For the mitigating factors I deduct 05 years to reach 06 years imprisonment.
    
11. The accused informed this Court that he was in remand for 01 year and 09 months and pursuant to section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree I deduct this period to reach 04 years 03 months imprisonment.
    
12. Therefore the accused is sentenced to 04 years 03 months imprisonment for the offence of Aggravated Robbery to be served concurrently with his present sentence. Pursuant to section 20 of the Sentencing and penalties Decree I also fix a non –parole period of 03 years for all his sentences.
    
13. 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.
    

22nd December 2014

H.S.P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva