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

State v Mara - Sentence 1 [2000] FJHC 182; Criminal Case 2.2000 (22 August 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2 OF 2000

STATE

V

APOROSA MARA
MAHEN LAL s/o Hari Lal

Mr. Robert Schuster for the State
Accused Mahen Lal - in person

SENTENCE

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE:
Contrary to Section 293(1) (b) of the
Penal Code, Cap. 17

(Second Accused only)

The second accused Mahen Lal s/o Hari Lal was on his own plea this day convicted of the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 293(1)(b) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

The facts as outlined to Court reveal that he with two others robbed the complainants in the charge of the sum of $15,251.54 and at the time of such robbery some personal violence was used resulting in serious injury. The accused Mahen Lal was part of the group that executed the robbery and he himself was seated in a get away taxi. He is as blameworthy as the others.

In sentencing you, I have taken into account what Mr. Semisi has said on your behalf in mitigation. It is noticed that prior to this robbery which occurred on 14 July 1994 you had four previous convictions which all occurred on the same date, namely, 4 October 1989 when you were about 18 years old and you were placed on probation for 12 months. These offences were for burglary and house-breaking which are not akin to the present offence. You kept out of trouble for about five years after that when you committed the present offence which is of a very serious nature. For some reason this case against you had not been dealt with and disposed until now. On 23 June 2000 you were sentenced by the High Court for the offence of robbery with violence committed later in time i.e. 1998.

The learned prosecutor has stated that a co-accused was on his own plea convicted and sentenced for the present offence for 2½ years by the Magistrates Court. Evidently he was closer to the scene of robbery than you and took active part and inflicted violence.

I have taken into account your plea of guilty and the co-operation that you extended in the investigation of this case. There is no way that the Court can avoid imposing a custodial sentence; you have committed a grave offence. In the circumstances of this case it will not be possible to pass a concurrent sentence, as urged by your Counsel.

In cases of robbery with violence the Court had to bear in mind the importance of deterrent sentences and public perception of how courts dealt with robberies (Attorney-General’s Reference Nos. 41 & 42 of 1995, Vincent Edwards and Richard David Horton). An appropriate sentence concurrent with the gravity of the offence ought to be meted out. Normally a substantial period of custody was the norm. Here a large sum of money was involved and hardly anything was recovered.

In this case bearing in mind all the mitigating factors, and considering the fact that a co-accused received 2½ years, for uniformity’s sake, in the case of this accused for his part the proper sentence would be two years’ imprisonment. The accused has stated his intention to reform and that can only be tested after he has served his punishment.

Therefore, being as lenient as I can be in the matter, I sentence you to imprisonment for two years consecutive to the sentence which you are at present serving.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
22 August 2000