Director of Public Prosecutions v Ledua [1977] FJSC 92; Criminal Appeal 112 of 1977 (28 October 1977)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1977

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Appellant

v.

TEVITA BOLA LEDUA
Respondent

JUDGMENT

The respondent was, on his own plea, convicted by the Magistrates Court Suva of Shop-breaking entering and larceny contrary to section 333(a) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 2 ½ years' imprisonment.

According to the facts admitted, the respondent had stolen 48 watches from a shop and sold them for $500. None of the watches have been recovered.

The respondent admitted twenty-one previous convictions.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly inadequate.

Several of the previous convictions relate to escaping from lawful custody but the respondent has been convicted seven times during the last five years of larceny and kindred offences. For a person only 24 years of age this is quite an appalling record.

The respondent, who is unrepresented at the hearing of this appeal, however, points out that the recent convictions against him have all been for petty thefts such as theft of a towel, or of a pair of shoes or of a small sum of money belonging to a cousin which he eventually returned. The appellant is not in a position to dispute this. The sentences imposed by the Court for these offences range from 3 to 9 months and do suggest that the Court did not take a very serious view of them.

The respondent also states that, but for the fact that he himself admitted the offence to the police, they would not have been able to apprehend him. This fact does not appear in the learned Magistrate's record but he does say:

"This man has an appalling record, but it is in his favour tint he has pleaded guilty and has materially assisted the Police in other directions. Thus in view of this I feel able to mitigate the penalty somewhat."

From this it does appear that the prosecution informed the Court of material assistance received from the respondent and the learned magistrate intended the sentence to be a "mitigated" one.

In view of this I do not consider it proper to interfere with exercise of the learned Magistrate's discretion.

The appeal is dismissed.

(G. Mishra)
JUDGE

Suva,
28th October, 1977