Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Court of Appeal of Fiji

Timo v State [2015] FJCA 163; AAU0093.2015 (1 December 2015)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
[On Appeal from the High Court]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.0088 OF 2014
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.0093.2014
[High Court Case No. HAC150/13 Ltk]

BETWEEN

NACANI TIMO
DAVID LOCKINGTON
Appellants

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Coram : Goundar JA
Counsel : Appellants in person
Mr. M. Korovou for State

Date of Hearing : 27 October 2015
Date of Ruling : 1 December 2015

RULING

[1] The appellants were jointly charged on one count of aggravated robbery. Appellant Timo pled guilty to the charge after the trial judge ruled his confession admissible. On 30 June 2014, he was sentenced to 12 years' 1 month imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years and 6 months.

[2] Appellant Lockington was convicted after trial. He was sentenced 13 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.

[3] Both appellants filed their appeals in person. Timo filed his Notice on 11 July 2014. His appeal is within time. He seeks leave to appeal both conviction and sentence. His grounds of appeal in summary are:

1. He was prejudiced by lack of legal representation.
2. His confession was wrongly admitted in evidence.
3. His guilty plea was given insufficient weight by the trial judge.
4. The trial judge mistook that he committed the offence while on bail.
   

[4] Counsel for the State concedes that the last ground is arguable but says the error did not have any significant effect on the sentence. The test for leave is whether any ground of appeal is arguable. Since there is an arguable ground of appeal and the appellant is representing himself, I grant him leave to appeal conviction and sentence in the interests of justice. The appellant may proceed with his appeal on all four grounds above.

[5] Lockington filed his appeal on 1 August 2014 but his Notice is dated 29 July 2014. I find the appeal is within time. His grounds of appeal in summary are:

1. His conviction is unsafe.
2. His trial was unfair.
3. Verdict is unreasonable and inconsistent.
4. Element of the offence was used to enhance the sentence.
5. Starting point was excessive.
   

[6] Counsel for the State has brought to the attention of this Court that a point that may be arguable is the manner in which the trial judge dealt with the evidential value of the search list signed by the appellant. Given that I have granted the first appellant leave, I also grant leave to the second appellant to appeal conviction and sentence in the interests of justice.

Result
Leave granted.

................................................
Hon. Justice Daniel Goundar
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Solicitors:
Appellants in person
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State