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

Matavou v The State [1990] FJHC 72; Haa0067j.90s (17 August 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 1990

Between:

SEVANAIA MATAVOU
Applicant

- and -

THE STATE
Respondent

Applicant in Person
Mr J. Prakash for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to 6 counts of House Breaking Entering and Larceny and sentenced to 6 concurrent terms of 12 months imprisonment.

He appeals against the sentence on the ground that it is harsh and excessive having regard to his youth, previous good character and other mitigating factors.

The offences were committed over a period of 10 days and involved the same premises each time. The total value of the stolen articles was about $235.00 of which items worth $228.00 were recovered, with the appellant's assistance, from the various pawn shops where he had deposited them for money.

At the hearing of the appeal the appellant stated that the house that he had broken into and stolen from belonged to his aunt and he had committed the offences because she had refused to give him money.

If I may say so that fact does not lessen the seriousness of the offences in any way, if anything, it makes it worse by the added meanness.

Nevertheless I was struck by the appellant's apparent naivety during the hearing of his appeal and by the fact that he was actually apprehended inside his aunt's house on the last occasion that he broke into the premises.

Of his sentence the appellant has already served 2 months and with remission is due to be released in 6 months time. He professes to have learnt of the futility of life in prison and he seeks the Court's lenience.

He is 23 years of age and claims he was a student at the Christian Leadership College at the time of committing these offences.

He is a first offender and has shown his remorse by pleading guilty and assisting the police with the recovery of the stolen items.

I am willing to be lenient to him in the circumstances and I propose to grant him his request by ordering that the remainder of his sentence, namely, 7 months (with earned remission) be suspended from today for a period of 12 months.

The immediate effect of this order is that the appellant shall be released from prison on a suspended sentence, however he is warned that if he is convicted of an imprisonable offence within the next 12 months, he will be brought before this Court and may be required to serve the 7 months remaining of his present sentence.

Needless to say in the event that the appellant does re-offend this Court is unlikely to extend to him the leniency it has been able to show him on this occasion.

(D. V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

17th August, 1990
At Suva.

HAA0067J.90S