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

Raikabula v The State [1990] FJHC 65; Haa0059j.90s (8 March 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 1990

Between:

LOTE RAIKABULA
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Senaratne for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of Larceny From Person in the Suva Magistrate Court on the 28th of February, 1990. He was convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

The appellant now appeals against the sentence on the ground that it is harsh and excessive considering his youth and other mitigating factors.

In this case the complainant was walking along a public street when the appellant snatched 3 gold chains she was wearing and went away.

The offence was reported to the police who searched for and located the appellant staggering along a nearby street in the area. upon being searched a chain was recovered from the appellant. It has been returned to the complainant.

In the Magistrate Court and during the hearing of his appeal the appellant said that he was drunk when he committed this offence. With that there can be no dispute but drunkenness cannot and does not excuse the harassment of innocent people on our public roads and the sooner offenders realise that the better.

The learned magistrate in sentencing the appellant said:

"This type of offence (is) becoming common in Suva and calls for a deterrent sentence. 18 months imprisonment."

State Counsel in opposing the appeal cited the appellant's record of previous convictions which included 2 offences of Assault with Intent to Robbery.

Reference was also made to 3 Larceny offences that the appellant committed whilst under a suspended prison sentence imposed in February 1988. Indeed this present offence was also within the period of suspension. This latter fact counsel submits is indicative of the appellant's attitude towards the courts past leniency towards him.

This court recently dealt with a similar "snatch and run" case in Cr. App. No. 41 of 1990 Susitino Domokanica v. The State in which a sentence of 9 months imprisonment was upheld and in which the court said:

"..... the sentence was entirely proper and if anything erred on the light side for an offence which is becoming all too prevalent and in which the victim is usually a helpless woman."

In that appeal the appellant had a worse record of previous convictions than the present appellant although he was younger. Furthermore the sentencing magistrate made specific reference to the appellant's guilty plea and recovery of the chain. Here no such acknowledgment has been made.

Accordingly and in the interest of maintaining some degree of uniformity in the sentences being imposed for offences of this kind I am able to show the appellant some leniency by reducing his sentence to 12 months imprisonment with effect from the 28th of February, 1990.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
3rd August, 1990.

HAA0059J.90S