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

Tikoisuva v The State [1990] FJHC 13; Haa0058j.89s (2 February 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 1989

Between:

JONATI TIKOISUVA
MARTIN BLAKE
Appellants

v.

STATE
Respondent

Appellants in Person
Mr. S. Seneratne for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellants appeal against a sentence of 12 months and 6 months imprisonment respectively, imposed by the Suva Magistrate Court upon their conviction for an offence of Escaping from Lawful Custody.

At the time of their escape the appellants were prisoners in the Maximum Security Prison at Naboro. The facts outlined by the prosecutor clearly shows that this was a planned mass escape. It was not a case of a prisoner in an outside working party succumbing to temptation and making a run for it.

Both appellants are not 'first-time escapees' as their record of previous convictions indicates. The record of escaping of the first appellant is particularly bad being no less than on 4 previous occasions. The second appellant although his record does not reveal any prior Escaping convictions has frankly admitted to escaping on at least one other occasion.

I would repeat what was said by the learned Magistrate in sentencing the appellants:

"Escaping from prison does not assist a prisoner as it means a consecutive sentence is usually imposed and therefore adds to the terms already being served."

Having regard to the 1st appellant's record of previous escapes for which he has received sentences of 3 months and 4 months I cannot agree that a sentence of 12 months is harsh and excessive nor is there anything wrong with imposing on him a heavier sentence than that imposed on his co-escapees notwithstanding that he was recaptured after 2 days. His appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The 2nd appellant on the other hand was at large for 11 days before his recapture. He says he did not intend to escape but merely did it as a result of frustration and resentment at being kept in solitary confinement and following his fellow inmates.

Learned State counsel correctly points out that at the time of this appellant's escape he was no longer in solitary confinement and had been given work in the prison bakery.

It must be remembered Maximum security prisons by their very nature are intended to be the most difficult prisons to escape from. Escape from such a prison requires much planning and by its very nature undermines 'prison officer morale' and necessitates the expenditure of public funds and occupies the valuable time and effort of police officers that must inevitably be devoted to the recapture of escapees. Not to mention the fear that mass prison break-outs also engenders in the general public.

As such prison escapees cannot expect anything other than a consecutive prison term however the length of the sentence will depend on such factors as the planning involved, the damage caused; the period at large; the circumstances of recapture and the commission of offences (if any) whilst the prisoner is at large to name but a few.

The learned trial magistrate wrongly treated the 2nd appellant as a first offender when he sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment (being half what the 1st appellant received). I cannot accept that in doing so he erred in principle or was being unduly harsh.

Accordingly the appeal of the second appellant is also dismissed.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
2nd February, 1990.

HAA0058J.89S