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

Sorokibau v State [2000] FJHC 173; Criminal Appeal 51 of 2000 (21 July 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2000
(Suva Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 973/00)

Between:

LUI VIRA SOROKIBAU
Appellant

And

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Ms. Resina Senikurociri for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Upon his conviction on his own plea on 20 April 2000 for the offence of robbery with violence contrary to s.293(1)(a) of the Penal Code Cap. 17 the appellant Lui Vira Sorokibau was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years by the Resident Magistrate in the Magistrate’s Court at Nausori.

He has appealed against severity of sentence.

The facts are that the appellant with another robbed the complainant a 23 year old plant operator of Southern Forest, Wainadoi of $6,000 in cash the property of Southern Forest. The complainant had withdrawn some money from Westpac Bank at Nausori and had it in a bag with him whilst driving his vehicle. On his way the driver stopped at Lami opposite Castle Restaurant and his passenger went to buy some food. The bag of money was left on the passenger seat. The appellant and another came and the former picked the bag while the latter pointed a knife at the driver who as on the driver’s seat. Both ran away in a waiting taxi.

No money was recovered.

Appellant’s submission

The appellant says that violence was used by his companion but not by him as he merely grabbed the ‘bag of money’.

He says that the sentence is harsh and excessive.

Respondent’s submission

The learned Counsel for the State submits that the appellant, contrary to what has been stated to Court that he is a first offender, he in fact has 9 previous convictions (certified true copy produced). This the appellant has admitted before this Court. Why the record of the previous convictions was not produced, she does not know.

She said that the stolen money has not been recovered.

Counsel has opposed the appeal stating that quite a substantial sum of money was stolen by pointing a knife at the complainant. She said that the appellant got off very lightly after the Magistrate acting on the information that he had a clean record gave him 12 months’ concession and passed a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.

She says that the sentence is proper and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.

Consideration of the appeal

I have considered the submissions made to me on this appeal. For the manner in which the offence was committed I do not find anything wrong with the long deterrent sentence passed on the appellant. The appellant has 9 previous convictions with 3 of them for larceny.

This indeed was a serious offence committed by the use of a knife. A large sum of money was involved and none of it was recovered.

This offence was aggravated by taking place in a public place when the victim was alone in his vehicle and in a vulnerable position, that it was carried out by two men and a threat was made to use a knife. It is clear that this type of offence made members of the public afraid to move about and the public required protection from the courts and it can only be provided by severe sentences.

An offence of this type required an element of deterrence in the sentence and a substantial period of custody was the norm. In Michael Dawkins (1955) 16 Cr. App. R (S) C.A. 456 which was a robbery case, Ebsworth J. at 461 said:

"We make it clear that we have reached the conclusion that the level and prevalence of offending of this kind is such that those who are advising offenders and those who are contemplating committing offences of this kind should be aware that sentences of six, seven and eight years are unlikely to be felt to be sufficient to meet the public interest in the future".

That public interest being the overriding consideration when dealing with offences of this sort is the correct principle and it involves necessarily the passing of deterrent sentences (Dawkins, supra, 460)

In sentencing the learned Magistrate has taken into account the appellant’s plea of guilty and that is all that can be said in his favour. This is taken into account in deciding on the length of the sentence to impose. However, on the facts and circumstances of this case where no injury was inflicted the sentence is slightly on the high side.

I therefore vary the sentence by setting aside the sentence and substituting it with one of three and a half-years’ imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed to that extent.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
21 July 2000