State v Rinasau - Sentence [2017] FJMC 96; Criminal Case 797.2016 (24 July 2017)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT NAUSORI

Criminal Case No: -797/2016

STATE

V

EREMASI RINASAU

For the Prosecution : WPC Losalini

The accused: In person

Date of Sentence : 24^th of July 2017

SENTENCE

1. EREMASI RINASAU, you pleaded guilty in this court to one count of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Act No 44 of 2009.
2. You also admitted that on 10^th November 2016, you broke in the car of the complainant which was parked at MHCC car park and stole laptops and chargers to the total value of $4,320.00. Only few items were recovered including one laptop.
3. I am satisfied that your plea was made voluntarily and unequivocal. Accordingly I convict you for this charge.
4. Maximum penalty for Theft under the Crimes Act 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 LaisiasaKoroivuki v the State [2013] FJCA 15; AAU0018.2010 (5 March 2013) the Court of Appeal 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 above judicial precedents and based on objective seriousness, I select 04 months as the starting point in this case.
8. The aggravating factors are you damaged the vehicle and this was committed in a public car park. For these I add 08 months to reach 12 months imprisonment.
9. The mitigating factors are you are 24 years old, married with a small child, some items recovered and seeking forgiveness from this court. For these, I deduct 03 months to reach 09 months imprisonment.
10. Even though your plea was not made at the earliest opportunity, even in the last moment by pleading guilty you saved the resources of this court. You deserve credit for that. For that I deduct 02 months to reach 07 months imprisonment.
11. You have been in remand for nearly 38 days and pursuant to section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act I deduct 1 ½ month to reach 5 ½ months imprisonment.
12. Now I have to consider whether to suspend your sentence.
13. Suspending a sentence for a person who broke in to a vehicle in broad day light in public car park like MHCC would be clearly a sending a wrong message to the society. Hence the deterrence would be the main purpose of your sentence.
14. But considering your young age and past good behavior in my view there need to be an opportunity for rehabilitation also. Accordingly a partly suspended sentence would be justifiable in this case.
15. EREMASI RINASAU, you are sentenced to 5 ½ months imprisonment for this charge. From that you have to serve 03 months in correction center and balance 2 ½ months suspended for 03 years.
16. If you commit any offences during the operational period of your suspended sentence you can be charge under section 28 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act.
17. 28 days to appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate