Vuniyacawa v State [2008] FJSC 51; CAV0013.2008S (17 October 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
AT SUVA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. CAV0013 OF 2008S
(Fiji Court of Appeal No AAU0074 of 2007S)

BETWEEN:

TOMASI VUNIYACAWA
Petitioner

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram: The Hon Justice Keith Mason, Judge of the Supreme Court
The Hon Justice Kenneth Handley, Judge of the Supreme Court
The Hon Justice Mark Weinberg, Judge of the Supreme Court

Hearing: Tuesday, 14th October 2008, Suva

Counsel: Petitioner in Person
Mr for the Respondent

Date of Judgment: Friday, 17th October 2008, Suva

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] The petitioner pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to a charge of robbery with violence. He and four others had entered the victim’s office and threatened him with an empty whisky bottle and a knife. They stole jewellery, a camera mobile phone, a laptop and other goods to a value of $30,400. None of the items were recovered.

[2] The learned magistrate regarded the offence as a serious one. Deterrence was called for although credit was given for the guilty plea. The petitioner had a poor criminal record that included several sentences for larceny and one for robbery with violence. The magistrate observed that the petitioner had not learnt a lesson from his previous visits to jail.

[3] The five years sentence imposed was described by Govind J on appeal as "if anything on the lenient side" because a starting point of eight rather than seven years would not have been inappropriate. The appeal to the High Court contending that the sentence was harsh and excessive was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

[4] When leave to appeal was sought in the Court of Appeal, Pathik J endorsed the remarks of Govind J. His Lordship was not satisfied that the appellant had shown cause as required by s22 of the Court of Appeal Act. Clearly he saw no question of law in the matter before him and he regarded the leave application as bound to fail.

[5] The petition and submissions supporting it raise nothing indicative of error in the courts below.

[6] The point now pressed is based on the parity principle. The petitioner refers to the situation of a co-accused who received a sentence of one a half years. This matter was not raised in the courts below. Furthermore, the petitioner has not identified the matter referred to.

The Hon Justice Keith Mason
Judge of the Supreme Court

The Hon Justice Kenneth Handley
Judge of the Supreme Court

The Hon Justice Mark Weinberg
Judge of the Supreme Court

Solicitors:
Petitioner in Person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Suva for the Respondent