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

Rokowaqa v State [2000] FJHC 171; Criminal Appeal 43 of 2000 (21 July 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2000
(Nausori Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 448/99)

Between:

URAIA CAVA ROKOWAQA
Appellant

And

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. Resina Senikuraciri for the State

JUDGMENT

On 27 September 1999 the appellant Uraia Cava Rokowaqa was on his own plea convicted of the offence of burglary contrary to section 299(a) and larceny contrary to section 270 of the Penal Code at the Magistrate’s Court at Nausori and sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months consecutive to the sentence he was serving.

The Particulars of Offence reads:

URAIA CAVA ROKOWAQA, on the 24th day of May, 1999 at Nausori in the Central Division, by night broke and entered the dwelling house of NAR SINGH s/o DURGA PRASAD and stole from therein one car stereo, valued $400.00, one mitre soccer ball valued $40.00, and one volley ball valued at $20.00 to the total value of $460.00 the property of the said NAR SINGH s/o DURGA PRASAD.

The appellant had on the day of hearing of this appeal handed in to Court ‘Additional Grounds of Appeal’. His very lengthy narration of what he actually wants the Court to do is, to put it in a nutshell, whether this sentence could be made concurrent to the sentence of 18 months which he was serving for housebreaking.

Appellant’s submission

The appellant commenced by stating that he was serving 3 years imprisonment at the time when he was sentenced for the present offence and he said that he did not tell the Magistrate that he was serving 18 months as stated in Record by the Magistrate.

The appellant was confused as to his sentences. For some reason the Prosecutor told the Magistrate that he had only one conviction whereas in fact he had three others for housebreaking (3 counts) for which he was sentenced to 6 months on each count consecutive making a total of 18 months. This was revealed to this Court when the learned Counsel for the State produced his list of previous convictions to Court.

The appellant agreed that he has these previous convictions.

He says that that sentence of burglary be made concurrent to his sentence of 18 months for housebreaking imposed on him in June 1999. He is a married man with a child.

Respondent’s submission

The learned Counsel for the State opposing the appeal submitted that this was a serious case. She told the Court how the appellant entered the house by forcing open the front grille door and intending to steal therefrom he did steal. He has previous convictions for similar offences namely, housebreaking for which he is serving a total of 18 months.

On the principles of sentencing for this type of offence Counsel referred the Court to the case of R v. Simon James Biggs (1990) 12 Cr. App. R. (S). 341. She said that the sentence is neither harsh nor excessive in all the circumstances of this case and it was not a case which warranted a concurrent sentence. She asks that the appeal be dismissed as without merit.

Consideration of the appeal

I have considered the submissions made to me by both sides.

The short point in this appeal is whether the sentence could have been made concurrent to the sentence which the appellant was serving.

The sentence I find was proper; it was neither harsh nor excessive. It was not wrong in principle either.

The appellant committed a serious offence and a deterrent sentence of appropriate length looking at the seriousness of the offence was warranted. The appellant had committed a series of offences of breaking and entering in the past. The following passage from the judgment of Anthony Lincoln J. in Biggs (supra) at 342 is worth noting:

It is certainly no part of the function of this Court to sentence him for his previous record. On the other hand, it is impossible for the Court to disregard the very strong streak of dishonesty in this man which led him to yet one more burglary to add to this woeful catalogue of burglaries and instances of theft.

In the opinion of this Court, it is impossible to see that the learned judge was in any way at fault in his sentencing. He took into account the plea of guilty, but he had regard to the speed with which this man resorted to burglary after his release from prison.

I see no merit in the appellant’s plea for the sentence to be made concurrent. The principles of sentencing in this regard do not allow for that to be done in this case.

The appeal is dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
21 July 2000