PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 1998 >> [1998] FJHC 60

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Chand v The State [1998] FJHC 60; Haa0017j.1998b (28 April 1998)

wpe3.jpg (10966 bytes)

Fiji Islands - Chand, N v The State - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LABASA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

NAREND CHAND
s/o Subhas Chand
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Appelln Person
Mbr> Ms. Laisa Laveti for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

On 9 March 1998 the Appellant was on his own plea convicted at Magistrate's Court, Labasa by Resident Magistrate S.M. Shah of the offence of larceny of cattle contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months.

He has appealed against severity of sentence.

The appellant in his grounds of appeal said, inter alia, that because the complainant owed him some money he committed this offence. He said that he is a 35 year old farmer; he has a wife and three children to support. The appellant is asking for leniency.

The learned State Counsel while opposing the appeal said that a serious offence has been committed and she endorses the remarks of the learned Magistrate before passing sentence. She says that it is a prevalent offence; the appellant admitted that he has taken a revenge against the complainant. She said that the sentence of 12 months is within the tariff for such offences and is therefore justified.

Cattle theft has always been regarded as a very serious offence and there have to be strong mitigating factors before an accused can escape a custodial sentence. I endorse the remarks of the learned Resident Magistrate as to how precious bullocks are for farming purposes and the prevalence of this offence in the Northern Division.

As I said before there is need for general deterrent sentences for such offences for it is the general purpose of the criminal law to protect the community and this can be done by making the punishment fit the offence and the offender and thereby promote respect in the community for the justice of criminal law. I sympathise with the distress the appellant's family will suffer but he must realise that this is the direct consequence of the appellant's own criminal conduct but this cannot be considered a mitigating factor (Jiuta Lumuni, Apisai Tuitagaloa v State (Crim. App. No. 36/87 FCA).

The learned Magistrate has erred on the side of leniency by giving the said sentence which is not a day too long.

The appeal is devoid of any merits and it is dismissed.

D. Pathik
JUDGE

At Labasa
28 April 1998

Haa0017j.98b


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1998/60.html