Rakonaca v Reginam [1977] FJSC 5; Criminal Appeal 017 of 1977 (4 March 1977)

Fiji Islands - Rakonaca v Reginam - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 1977

:

SALIMONI RAKONACA

AND:

REGINAM

On the 20th January 1977 Suva Magistrates Coes Court purported to convict the appellant on his own plea of larceny con to section 294(1) of the Penal Code and sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment. The The appellant has appealed against conviction and sentence.

The charge against the accused was that he with another stole a purse containing $400 in travellers' cheques and $35 in cash and when the charge won read to him he replied "It is true". However the facts which wore then placed before the court to support the charge were that a number of persons including the complainant and the appellant attended a party during which the complainant placed her purse containing the travellers' cheques and cash on a table. One of the other persons stole the complainant's purse and left the party. The appellant subsequently followed the thief who gave him $4.60, the balance of $400 in travellers' cheques and $30.40 in cosh being retained by the thief. The loss of the purse was discovered and ultimately the appellant was traced and interviewed whereupon he denied that he had taken part in stealing the purse but admitted receiving $4.60 of the stolen cash.

Those facts were admitted by the appellant from which it is clear that he was admitting having received the sum of $4.60 knowing it to have been stolen - but there was nothing in the facts placed before the court to show that he was a party to the original theft of the purse. It therefore become incumbent upon the trial Magistrate to ascertain from the appellant whether he had counselled or procured the thief, or had aided or abetted the thief, so as to be a principal offender in the terms of section 21 of the Penal Code; and if not to enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf or, with the concurrence of the prosecution, to convict him of receiving the sum of $4.60 knowing it to have been stolen. Apparently this was not considered by the trial Magistrate who convicted him on the charge laid and imposed a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment.

Under the powers conferred by section 175(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code the conviction of larceny is quashed and in substitution therefor the appellant is convicted of having received the sum of $4.60 knowing some to have been stolen contrary to section 347(1) of the Penal Code. The sentence of twelve months' imprisonment is quashed and in substitution therefor the appellant is sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Clifford H. Grant
CHIEF JUSTICE

Suva,
4th March 1977.