| Fiji Islands - Rauve v The State - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE FIJI COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 1990
(Criminal Case No. 18/85)
BETWEEN:
NAVITALAI RAUVE
Appellant
AND:
STATE
Respondent
Appellant in Person
Mr Ravi Perera for the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 12 October, 1990
Delivery of Judgment: 19 October, 1990
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Appellant was charged with the offence of murdering one Alice Tippet on 24 December 1984 at Tamavua, Suva. He was found not guilty
of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Supreme Court (now High Court) sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment on 18 April 1985.
He now appeals against that sentence on the ground that it is harsh and excessive.
For various reasons there was delay in filing the appeal and further delay in listing it for hearing.
The victim, an elderly lady of 84, was a semi-invalid largely confined to bed. She used to share a room with her daughter Mrs Spowart.
On the evening of Christmas Eve 1984 at about 9.00 pm she was lying alone in her bed when her daughter left to attend a mass. When
Mrs Spowart returned home she found her mother lying in a pool of blood on the floor and there was also blood all over her. Mrs Tippet
was taken to hospital where she died at 3.00 am on Christmas morning from the extensive injuries she received. These included multiple
head injuries and multiple rib fractures. It has been the Appellant's contention throughout that on the fatal night he entered the
house with the intention of stealing in the course of which he merely pushed the old lady from the bed whereupon she fell on the
floor and started bleeding from the mouth and nose. He says that at the material time he was drunk with methylated spirit but had
no intention of killing Mrs Tippet. There is conflict in the medical evidence as to whether the nature and extent of injuries received
by the victim could or could not have been occasioned by the fall as alleged by the Appellant.
The Appellant submits that the following grounds ought to be taken into account:-
(a) That the trial Judge failed to take into proper account his "plea of guilty in admittance of the alleged offence".
(b) That he was drunk at the time.
(c) That he had not gone there to cause her any injuries nor did intend to kill her when he pushed her.
(d) That he was not armed at the time of the offence.
(e) That the normal sentence for manslaughter even in serious cases is usually well below 12 years and his punishment was therefore
disproportionately high.
The Appellant also submitted that the effect of prolonged imprisonment, bearing in mind his youth, will not assist in his rehabilitation.
We note that the trial Judge made the following observations when sentencing the Appellant -
"I have given the most anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr Bulewa, in respect of his client. I have noted that he is very young person, I have noted too that perhaps the consumption of Methylated spirit had undesirable effect
in motivating him to do what he did that night. I also noted that the Accused has had two previous convictions of a serious nature,
and which were as recent as in 1983, a year before this incident. I am clear in my view that to kill a person in the privacy of their
own home, be it unintentionally, is a most grave matter, more particularly in this case where an old lady was made to suffer numerous
injuries to her body, and in respect of which, and because of her advanced age, she had very little chance of survival. Such a daring
and reckless behaviour, and the could not care less attitude, are becoming too much of a common feature of life in our society. And
I am sure the Courts are under a clear obligation to discourage it, if they cannot stop it altogether I am clear in my view that
this case or this conviction calls for a deterrent sentence and the sentence in this case, following upon a conviction for manslaughter,
is 12 years imprisonment."
Mr Perera the learned counsel for the State whilst not supporting the appeal nevertheless did concede that a 10-year sentence is
the upper limit normally reserved for the worst type of manslaughter cases in Fiji. He also very fairly drew our attention to the
following passage appearing at p.85 of Principles of Sentencing (second edition) by D.A. Thomas a leading authority on the subject
in England:
"Sentences at the upper limit of the scale for 'unlawful act' manslaughter, which appears to be about ten years' imprisonment,
will be reserved for cases where the accused has taken part in an enterprise where grave violence was in contemplation, but has escaped
conviction for murder because the principal has gone beyond the scope of the common purpose. In Harold and others1 a number of men attacked the deceased, threatening him with an axe; the cause of death was a wound, apparently inflicted by one of
the accused with a knife without the knowledge of his co-defendants. The principal was convicted of murder; other defendants who
had taken part in the attack received sentences ranging between seven and ten years, which were upheld with the comment that it was
'manslaughter of a very grave kind'."
Mr Perera was not able to cite any precedent in recent times where a sentence of 12 years was passed and upheld by the Courts in
Fiji. He however submitted that each case depended on the facts peculiar to it. He also agreed that perhaps some credit could be
given to the Appellant for admitting the fact that he was the person who caused injuries to the victim from which she died later.
However, Mr Perera reminded the Court that the Appellant had pleaded not guilty to murder and resolutely denied kicking the victim
or assaulting her by any other means.
The learned Chief Justice was entirely justified in taking a serious view of the case and we share the concern expressed by him.
We too regard this manslaughter to be of a grave kind. However, we note that punishment in Fiji for manslaughter of a serious kind
has normally ranged from 7 to 10 years imprisonment depending on the degree of gravity. However, we are aware that in 1975 the Fiji
Court of Appeal reduced a life sentence for manslaughter to 12 years imprisonment because it considered the case to be an 'extremely
bad one' (See Ram Sami v. Reginam 21 F.L.R. 12). We feel that the sentence must reflect not only the gravity of the offence but also the nature of conviction actually entered against
the Appellant. In our opinion a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for manslaughter will not only meet the ends of justice in this
case but will also lend support to the need for some degree of consistency in punishment for like offences. This is not to suggest
that a sentence exceeding 10 years cannot be justified in a manslaughter case of the gravest kind.
We therefore set aside the sentence of 12 years imposed on the Appellant and in lieu thereof pass a sentence of 10 years.
Sir Moti Tikaram
Justice of Appeal
Sir Ronald Kermode
Justice of Appeal
M.D. Jesuratnam
Justice of Appeal
Aau0013u.90s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJCA/1990/10.html
