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

Suluweti v State [1990] FJHC 5; Haa0057j.89s (2 January 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 1989

Between:

SUNIA SULUWETI
Appellant

v.

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. A. Prasad for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

On the 26th of June 1989 the appellant with 2 others was convicted on his guilty plea to 3 counts of Robbery with Violence by the Suva Magistrate Court and sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment on each count.

The appellant now appeals against the harshness of the sentence urging his youth and previous good character and his guilty plea in mitigation. He attributes his course of conduct to the bad company he was associating with at the time.

In opposing the appeal State counsel concedes that the Appellant is a young first offender but nevertheless counsel submits the offences were committed over a short space of time; are prevalent and fully warranted the sentence that was imposed.

The appellant was born on the 10th of March 1972 and at the date of his conviction was barely 17 years of age. He is indeed a first offender and has already served 7 months of his sentence.

It is true that Robbery with Violence is a serious offence and in this case were all committed within a month and in 2 instances within 2 days of each other. It is also conceded that none of the victims suffered any serious injuries nor was any weapon used in these 3 robberies which may be categorised as "street muggings".

This court has said time and again that every effort must be made to keep young first offenders out of prison and non-custodial measures ought to be exhausted before a lengthy prison sentence is imposed.

In this case no social welfare report was called for nor has any differentiation been made between the appellant and an elder co-accused who took part in 2 of the 3 robberies with which the appellant has been charged and whose record of previous convictions included 2 Robberies with Violence and Larceny. Nor is it at all clear that the learned trial magistrate took account of the appellant's guilty pleas.

The appellant admits that prison life is very hard and he fears that his continued association in prison with hardened criminals will adversely affect his efforts to reform. I am willing to give him the chance he pleads for in the hope that he will stand by his promise not to re-offend.

At the risk of appearing lenient I propose to take an exceptional course in this case by reducing the appellant's sentence so as to allow his immediate release. However, in order to assist the appellant keep to his promise I order under Section 41 of the Penal Code that he enter into his own recognizance in the sum of $200 with his father as surety in like sum on condition that the appellant shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months and it is further ordered that the appellant remain imprisoned until such time as the above recognizances are entered into.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
1st February, 1990

HAA0057J.89S