State v Sui [2016] FJMC 123; Criminal Case 1623.2015 (29 August 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: - 1623/2015

STATE

V

WILSON SUI

For the Prosecution : Inspector Suli

The Accused : In person

Date of Sentence : 29^th of August 2016

SENTENCE

1. WILSON SUI, you were charged with one count of Theft, contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree.
2. You pleaded guilty this morning and admitted the summary of facts presented by the Prosecution. According to facts you stole 2x Alcatel mobile phones from the complainant on 12/07/2015 to the total value of $199.00. You later pawned them and admitted to the police about this offence during your caution statement.
3. I am satisfied about your plea was voluntarily and unequivocal .Accordingly I convict you for this offence.
4. Maximum penalty for Theft is 10 years imprisonment.
5. The tariff was outlined in the case of Ratusili v State [2012] FJHC 1249; HAA011.2012 (1 August 2012) where his Lordship Justice Madigan said :

(i) for a first offence of simple theft the sentencing range should be between 2 and 9 months.

(ii) any subsequent offence should attract a penalty of at least 9 months.

(iii) Theft of large sums of money and thefts in breach of trust, whether first offence or not can attract sentences of up to three years.

(iv) regard should be had to the nature of the relationship between offender and victim.

(v) planned thefts will attract greater sentences than opportunistic thefts.

6. In Laisiasa Koroivuki v the State ( Criminal Appeal AAU 0018 of 2010) the Fiji Court of Appeal discussed the guiding principles for determining the starting point in sentencing and observed :

"In selecting a starting point, the court must have regard to an objective seriousness of the offence. No reference should be made to the mitigating and aggravating factors at this time. As a matter of good practice, the starting point should be picked from the lower or middle range of the tariff. After adjusting for the mitigating and aggravating factors, the final term should fall within the tariff. If the final term falls either below or higher than the tariff, then the sentencing court should provide reasons why the sentence is outside the range".

7. Considering the objective seriousness of the offence I select 05 months as the starting point.
8. This is more of an act of opportunity than a pre planned offence. Further there are no other factors to aggravate this offence.
9. In your mitigation you said you are 20 years old, single and unemployed. You are a first offender. For these mitigating factors I deduct 01 month to reach 04 months imprisonment.
10. When an accused pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, normally6 1/3 deduction is given to acknowledge saving of court time and resources. Following this principle, I also deduct 1/3 from your sentence to reach 02 months imprisonment.
11. Now I have to consider whether to suspend your sentence. It has been held that young, first offenders need to be given a chance to rehabilitate and I apply that for this case also.
12. WILSON SUI, I sentence you to 02 months imprisonment for the offence of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree and suspend this for 03 years.
13. If you commit any offences during next 03 years you can be charge under section 28 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
14. 28 days to appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate