State v Sikuri [2014] FJMC 87; Criminal Case 07.2014 (21 May 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: -07/2014

STATE

V

EMOSI SIKURI

Mr. Kumar for the State
Accused in Person

SENTENCE

1. EMOSI SIKURI , you were charged in this Court for following offence.

Count 1

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

Particulars of Offence

EMOSI SIKURI on the 01st day of January 2014, with others at Suva in the Central Division, robbed one RAVNIL PRASAD and stole ZTE mobile phone valued at $90.00 and $55.00 cash all to the total value of $145.00 the property of RAVNIL PRASAD

3. You pleaded guilty to the charge on 19th February 2014 and also admitted the summary of facts tendered by the State.
   
4. According to summary of facts on 01st of January 2014 you with 03 other persons robbed one Ranvil Prasad of his wallet containing $55.00 in cash and a ZTE mobile valued at $90.00 whilst he was on his way to work. This was committed on Central Street in Suva .
   
5. I am satisfied that you made this plea on your own free will and therefore convict you for this charge.
   

LAW AND TARIFF

6. Maximum penalty for the offence of Aggravated Robbery is 20 years imprisonment.
   
7. 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".

8. In Sakiusa Basa vs. the State (Criminal A 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'

9. In Nawai v The State(HAA 023 of 2011) his Lordship Justice Madigan said:
   

"In the absence of any evidence of injury to the victim and in the light of evidence that the money stolen from the victim was returned to him a suitable starting point would perhaps be four years rather than eight"

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

10. Following are aggravating factors in this case.
    
    1. This was committed in a public place.
    2. Disregard of the property rights
       
11. MITIGATING FACTORS
    
    1. Young offender
    2. First offender
    100. Cooperation with the police
    4. Mobile phone recovered
    5. Early guilty plea
       
12. Considering the facts in this case I select 04 years as my starting point and add 02 years for aggravating factors to reach 06 years. For your mitigating factors I deduct 04 years to reach 02 years imprisonment.
    
13. Pursuant to section 26(2) (b) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree this Court can suspend a sentence below two year.
    
14. You are a young first offender. You pleaded guilty early and also cooperated with the police . Mobile phone was also recovered.
    

15. In Nariva v The State [2006] FJHC 6; HAA0148J.2005S (9 February 2006) Madam Shameem stated:

"The courts must always make every effort to keep young first offenders out of prison. Prisons do not always rehabilitate the young offender. Non-custodial measures should be carefully explored first to assess whether the offender would acquire accountability and a sense of responsibility from such measures in preference to imprisonment."

15. Therefore you need to be given a chance to reform. Accordingly I sentence you to 02 years for the offence of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 311(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree and this will be suspended for 03 years.
    
16. If you commit any crime during next 03 years you can be charged under section 28 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
    
17. 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.
    

21st May 2014

H.S.P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate