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

Chand v The State [1989] FJHC 6; Haa0019j.1989b (23 October 1989)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Labasa
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19 0F 1989

Between:

AMI CHAND
s/o Bal Deo
Appellant
- and -

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. R. Perera for the State

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted on the 20th of February, 1989 by the Labasa Magistrate's Court after he pleaded guilty to an offence of Larceny. He was sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment.

The court record reveals that the case was called earlier than the date for which it had been fixed for hearing at the express request of the accused and the learned trial magistrate had verified the facts for the accused before taking his plea.

The facts outlined by the police prosecutor and substantially admitted by the appellant was sufficient to support the ingredients of an offence of Larceny and although the appellant had not appealed against his conviction he was given the fullest opportunity to argue his appeal which included numerous matters that appeared to put the appellant's conviction into question.

Having heard State counsel's reply I am satisfied that this is not an appropriate case to go behind the appellant's guilty plea or the provisions of Section 309(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap. 21 which precludes the allowance of any appeal ".......in the case of an accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea by a Magistrates' Court ........"

As to sentence the appellant submits that 12 months imprisonment is too long and adverts to the hardship being caused to his young family by his continued incarceration.

But stealing goats is not an acceptable way of providing for one's family and the courts must pass a sentence that will deter others from committing such offences.

Needless to say once a stolen goat is slaughtered its flesh can be swiftly disposed of to a ready market and detection thereafter becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I am satisfied that 12 months imprisonment is neither harsh nor excessive having regard to the nature of the appellant's previous convictions nor has there been any error in making it consecutive.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

Labasa,
23rd October, 1989.

HAA0019J.89B