State v Singh [2016] FJMC 79; Criminal Case 1436.2015 (6 July 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT of Fiji

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No 1436/15

STATE

-v-

SANJAY SINGH

SENTENCE

INTRODUCTION AND CHARGE

1] The following charge was read out to you and understanding the contents you pleaded guilty to the same on your own free will. Accordingly you are convicted to the following charge.

OBSTRUCTION POLICE OFFICER IN DUE EXECUTION OF HIS DUTIES: Contrary to Section 277(d)(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

SANJAY SINGH on the 14th day of August 2015 at Jittu Estate, Raiwaqa, Suva in the Central Division obstructed Detective Constable Number 3662 Peter Voi in due execution of his duties.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

2] Summary of facts that you have admitted is reproduced here;

➢ On the 14th day of August 2015 at about 0530 hours, DC 3662 Peter Voi (PW1) 30 years, Police Officer of Raiwaqa Police Station and operation team left out to look for Warrantee namely PremNandan at Jittu Estate, Raiwaqa.

➢ The warrantee escaped from his dwelling house and hid in the dwelling house of Sanjay Singh (Accused), 47 years, painter of Jittu Estate, Raiwaqa.

➢ PW1 approached and questioned the accused about the warrantee whereby he stated that he did not see the warrantee.

➢ A bystander informed PW1 that he had seen the warrantee in Accused’s house.

➢ PW1 told the accused to open the door for him and the accused called the warrantee out, and the warrantee came out of his washroom.

MAXIMUM SENTENCE

3] Imprisonment for 5 years

TARIFF

4] His lordship Chief Justice A.H.C.T. Gates discussed the tariff for the offence set out in Sec. 277 (b) in the case of State v Batiratu [2012] FJHC 864; HAR001.2012 (13 February 2012) where Accused 1 had pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s court to one count of assaulting a Police Officer in the execution of his duty.

It was held;

'The sentence ordered of binding over, the discharge without conviction, was not within the range and type of sentencing suitable for the offence of assault on police. The range is between 6-9 months imprisonment. The perversity of the offence is its violent challenge tolawful action taken by State servants, not in the extent of the assault. Of course the greater the violence and the injuries caused will lead to enhancement of sentence'.

5] Though assault is not involved above tariff is justifiable to the instant case as well as the above judgement proceeds to discuss the seriousness of threats to the smooth functioning of law enforcement agencies and their officers. Obstructing a police officer who is engaged in lawful execution of court process warrants no less punishment.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

6] Noaggravating factors

MITIGATING FACTORS

7] Followingfactors are relevant in the process of considering your sentence.

1. Early guilty plea
2. Low income that you Earn $150 per week
3. You have mentioned that you were not aware that the warrantee was running away from police
4. Promise not to reoffend
   

CONCLUSION

8] I shall now proceed to consider your sentence as consistent to the above mentioned factors.

I pick 9 months imprisonment as the starting point.

9] Since you have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, your sentence should be reduced by a third to reach 6 months in view of the judgement in VeretarikiVetaukula v The State , High Court Crim App Case No: HAA057/07 which followed Hem Dutt v The State , FCA Crim App Case No: AAU 0066 of 2005.

10] The prosecution has reported 8 convictions. Only one previous conviction out of those eight is within the past ten years period. Though that offence is not similar to the count in theinstant case you cannot be entitled to the credit for good character that a first offender is entitled to.

11] Your submission that that you were not aware that the warrantee was running away from police cannot be accepted as you have concealed the truth by saying that you did not see him when the police enquired from you. Therefore your mitigating factors except early guilty plea do not deserve any deduction of the above sentence.

As a matter of sentencing principle, any period that the offender spends in custody on remand should be taken into account when calculating the sentence (VideBasa v. The State [2006] FJCA 23; AAU0024.2005 (24 March 2006).

In Ledua v. State [2008] FJSC 31; CAV0004.2007 (17 October 2008), the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that time spent in custody should be taken into account in the sentence.

Accordingly 2 months period is deducted from 6 months imprisonment considering the overall period you have been in custody.

SUMMARY OF THE SENTENCE

4 months imprisonment

28 days to appeal

PRIYANTHA LIYANAGE

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, SUVA

6/7/2016