Croker v Reginam [1977] FJSC 88; Criminal Appeal 106 of 1977 (14 October 1977)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1977

1. EDWARD WILLIAM CROKER
2. FREDDIE JOSEPH ROBINSON
3. JULIAN CROKER
Appellants

V.

REGINAM
Respondent

JUDGMENT

The three appellants were, on their own pleas, convicted of Office-breaking entering and larceny contrary to section 333(a) of the Penal Code and wore each sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.

Each of them appeals against his sentence on the ground that, in the circumstances of the case, it is excessive. Their appeals were heard together.

According to the facts outlined by the prosecution, and admitted by the appellants, they on the night of 7th July 1977 broke into the offices of A.S. Farebrother & Co. and stole watches and cameras worth approximately $22,000. They sold most of the items and shared the proceeds. Watches worth only $600 have been recovered.

The appellants are between 21 and 23 years old. When asked if they had anything to say before sentence was passed, they remained silent.

While assessing a proper sentence the learned Chief Magistrate made specific reference to the prevalence of such offences and to the careful planning that had characterised this operation. He also took into account their pleas of guilty and their ages.

Normally these appeals would have been summarily dismissed. At the hearing of the appeals, however, the second appellant who is the only one with a criminal record made a rather startling submission. He stated that the details of the offence were planned entirely by him but the plan could not be executed by one person. He had, therefore, enlisted the assistance of the other two appellants who had merely done what they were told. It was he alone who had later organised the disposal of the stolen goods. He was sorry to have got the two young men into this trouble and submitted that, in view of these facts which were not made known to the learned Chief Magistrate, this Court ought to show leniency towards the first and the third appellants. He discontinued his own appeal.

Learned Counsel for the respondent conceded that the first and the third appellants had rendered considerable assistance to the police and were continuing to be of assistance. He was not in a position to dispute what the second appellant had stated.

If these matters were made known to, and accepted by, the learned Chief Magistrate, he would certainly not have imposed the same sentence on all three. I will consequently set aside the sentence of five years' imprisonment imposed on the first and the third appellants and in its place impose a sentence of three years' imprisonment on each of them.

The sentence passed on the second appellant who has discontinued his appeal remains unaltered.

(G. Mishra)
JUDGE

Suva,
14th October 1977