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

Vakacabeqoli v State [2000] FJHC 179; Criminal Appeal 57.2000 (10 August 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2000
(Kadavu Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 47/97)

Between:

EPARAMA VAKACABEQOLI
Appellant

And

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in person
Ms Resina Senikuraciri for the State

JUDGMENT

On 6 April 2000, the appellant was on his own plea convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years for the offence of being found growing dangerous drug namely 167 of plants of Indian Hemp contrary to section 8(a) and 41(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act Cap 114 as amended by Dangerous Drugs Act (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 1990 and Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1991.

The appellant appeals against severity of sentence.

He says that the sentence is excessive and is pleading to Court to reduce it.

The respondent while opposing he appeal states that it is the minimum sentence that the learned magistrate could have passed on the appellant. She says that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions of both the appellant and the respondent.

The appellant was found growing 167 plants of Indian hemp weighing a total of 2248.5 grams (according to Government Analyst’s Report).

Under s.8(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act it is provided (inter alia)

"8. Every person -

1. growing opium poppy, Indian hemp or coca leaf, whether for private use or otherwise; or
   

b) found in possession of or sells or otherwise traffics or engages in the trafficking of any substance to which this part applies,

shall be guilty of an offence and upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment in accordance with the Third Schedule of this Act –

Provided that a sentence imposed under this section shall be custodial."

The ‘Third Schedule’ provides that for being found growing exceeding 50 plants the minimum sentence is 2 years and maximum 14 years.

In this case the law is quite clear and the Magistrate therefore had no alternative but to pass the sentence which he did.

There is no merit in the appeal. It is therefore dismissed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
10 August 2000