State v Singh [2017] FJMC 44; Criminal Case 1682.2016 (15 March 2017)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: - 1682/2016

STATE

V

RAJIT SINGH
RAMNIK CHAND
For the Prosecution: Mr.E.Samisoni (ODPP)
Both accused : In persons
Date of Sentence: 15^th of March 2017

SENTENCE

1. RAJIT SINGH,RAMNIK CHAND , you both were charged with one count of Aggravated Robbery contrary to Section 311(1) (a) and one count of Attempted Aggravated Robbery contrary to sections 44(1) and 311(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
2. You both pleaded guilty for this charge and also admitted the following summary of facts presented by the State :

On the 29 September 2016, Aya Yamaguchi Murray (complainant 1) and a friend were walking along Fletcher Road in Vatuwaqa, Suva at around 3.30pm – 4pm on their way to the complainant’s house, when they saw Rajit siNGH (a1) 29 years old together with Ramnik Chand (A2) walking towards them from the opposite direction as they were approaching the Suva Point Apartments. A1 was recognized by the complainant when they had passed the Vodafone Arena earlier.

A1 and A2, attached the complainant and her friend and managed to steal a Samsung S5 mobile phone and a “Rip Curl” brand wallet by grabbing it from the complainant. Both items were valued at $200.00 and $15.00 respectively.

Afterwards, A1 and A2 then attempted to rob Jean Walker Gubon (complainant 2) who was walking with complainant 1, of her iPhone S5 mobile phone valued at $300.00.

A1 then ran towards Laucala Bay Road and the complainant 1 gave chase and alerted bystanders who helped apprehend A1. Only the wallet was recovered.

A1 was interviewd under caution where he admitted to the first count at Q&A 36 onwards. The wallet was identified by A1 at Q&A 53.

3. I am satisfied that your pleas were made voluntarily and unequivocal after understanding the full consequences .You both got proper legal advice for the pleas. Hence I convict you both for this charge.
4. Maximum penalty for the offence of Aggravated Robbery under the Crimes Decree is 20 years imprisonment.
5. In Wise v State [2015] FJSC 7; CAV0004.2015 (24 April 2015) his Lordship Chief Justice Anthony Gates said:

“We believe that offences of this nature should fall within the range of 8-16 years imprisonment. Each case will depend on its own peculiar facts. But this is not simply a case of robbery, but one of aggravated robbery. The circumstances charged are either that the robbery was committed in company with one or more other persons, sometimes in a gang, or where the robbers carry out their crime when they have a weapon with them.”

6. In Laisiasa Koroivuki v the State [2013] FJCA 15; AAU0018.2010 (5 March 2013) his Lordship Justice Goundar discussed the guiding principles for determining the starting point in sentencing in the following manner:

"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.

7. Considering the nature of offending and the culpability, I select 11 years imprisonment as the starting point for both accused for each count.
8. The State in their sentencing submission submitted the following as aggravating factors : a. By committing these offences , the offenders have shown an utter disregard to the complainants’ property rights;

b. The act was pre-mediated;

c. The complainants were fairly young at 16 and 17 years of age.

9. In any property related offence, by committing the offence the offenders show that they have no value for the property right of others. Further by highlighting the age of the victims, the state is trying to show that they are vulnerable persons. But the ages of the victims have not been shown in the admitted summary of facts and hence I do not think it is fair to consider that.
10. But I agree with the State that this was pre-mediated. In their respective caution statements the 2^nd accused admitted that he planned with the 1^st accused to rob the girls whilst the 1^st accused stated that after seeing the girls they decided to steal. Further these robberies were committed in broad day light in a Public Street. These I consider as aggravating factors and add 04 years to reach 15 years imprisonment.
11. In mitigation you both submitted the following grounds;

1^st accused

1. Sole bread winner of the family;
2. First offender;

100. Seeking forgiveness.

2^nd accused

a. Sole bread winner of the family;

b. The mother is suffering from Breast cancer and need care and attention of the accused;

c. First offender;

d. Seeking forgiveness.

12. For these mitigating factors I deduct 03 years to reach 12 years imprisonment.
13. For the guilty pleas of both accused giving full credit I deduct 1/3 to reach 09 years imprisonment.
14. You both were in remand for nearly 01 months and pursuant to section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree I deduct that period to reach 08 years 11 months imprisonment for each count. Considering totality principle and these offences were committed in same transaction I order these to be concurrent.
15. You both are from broken families and looking after your mothers who are old and dependent on you. They have written compelling letters to this court highlighting the difficulties they would face if both of you are removed from their lives. As much as I understand these hardships of the elderly parents, showing leniency to both of you means condoning innocent people being robbed on broad daylight in this country. This court has a duty to protect the public and make them safe with their daily activities without subject to this kind of horrific experience. Hence you both have to face a long custodial sentence for committing these offences.
16. I sentenced you both to 08 years 11 months imprisonment for this charge with a non- parole period of 05 years.
17. Since this court is exercising the extended jurisdiction of the High Court, the parties may appeal against this sentence within 30 days with leave to the Court of Appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate