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

Racumu v The State [1994] FJHC 186; Haa0031j.94b (13 December 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1994

Between:

ATONIO RACUMU
Appellant

- and -

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in person
Mr. McNaughtan for State

JUDGMENT

On 11 October 1994 appellant was on his own plea convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment by the Taveuni Magistrate's Court for the offence of cultivating Indian hemp contrary to section 7 and 8(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act Cap. 114.

The appellant had in his Petition of Appeal set out the grounds of appeal in which he raises the point that he expected the prosecution to speak in mitigation in his favour but he feels that it was not done as he expected; he further states, to the effect, that he has been "involved with drugs" and is repenting for his past doings in this regard and is asking the Court for leniency.

On the hearing of appeal, when asked if he had anything to say on the grounds filed, he said that there was an agreement between him and Police when he appeared before the learned Magistrate but police did not adhere to the agreement. What the agreement was he did not disclose to this Court. He further said that he made the admission after being in custody for 48 hours.

The learned State Counsel argued that proper procedure was followed when the charge was put to the appellant. There is nothing in the record to show other than what actually transpired and hence one cannot go outside the record. The minimum penalty which the law provides is 12 months' imprisonment (which "shall be custodial").

I find that there is no merit in the appeal.

There was an unequivocal plea of guilty. No objection of the nature being raised now was brought to the notice of the Court below and it cannot be considered at this hearing. In fact the accused told this Court that the record is correct. In any case there is no substance in his grounds of appeal.

The appellant cannot complain about the sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for, apart from the requirement of the law that the sentence "shall be custodial" (s8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Amendment) Decree 1990) the minimum sentence, in this case where plants did not exceed 50, should have been 12 months and not 9 months.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Labasa
13 December 1994

HAA0031J.94B