| Fiji Islands - Abbas Koya v The State - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA 029 OF 2001S
BETWEEN:
&nGB>
ABBAS KOYA
f/n Hassan Koya
Appellant
AND:
THE STATE
Respondent
Counsel: Appellant in Person
Mr Farogo for Respondentspan>
Hearing: 3rd May 2001
Judgment: 7th May 2001
JUDGMENT
The Appellant was convicted on the 23rd of March 2000, of the following offence:
Statement of Offence
OFFICE BREAKING ENTERING AND LARCENY: Contrary to section 300(a) of Penal Code, Cap. 17
Particulars of Offence
ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> VIREND PRASAD s/o Hari Prasad, ABBAS KOYA s/o Hassan Koya and H KUMAR s/o Deo Kumar between 23rd day of December and 24th 24th day
of December 1997 at Nausori in the Central Division, broke and entered the Crime Office of Nausori Police Station and stole therein
items namely 1 generator valued $2,500.00, one radio cassette valued $400.00, 6 CD’s valued $120.00, one brush cutter valued $700.00,
the property of BP’s Home Centre, 1 steel brush cutter valued $700.00, the property of Ajit Kumar s/o Abhimanu, 1 kawasaki brush
cutter valued $700.00 of Rodendra Prasad s/o Dwarka Prasad and one telescope valued $1,500.00, the property of unknown person, all
to the total value of $6,620.00.
He was sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment.
His appeal was originally against conviction and sentence, and was lodged on the 1st of June 2000. The record was certified by thrned
Magistrate on 16th Novh November 2000, but the record was not sent to the High Court until 27th April 2001, some five months later.
Appeal records are required to be sent to the High Court within 28 days of lodging of appeal (section 312 Criminal Procedure Code as amended by Act No. 37/98). This delay in the Nausori Magistrate’s Court Registry is quite unacceptable. I hope it is looked into.
As a direct result of the delay, the Appellant at the hearing ofappeal, decided to abandon his appeal against conviction. He made
submissions on sentence once only. His submission was that he wished to be released from custody so that he could reconcile with
his wife who had filed a divorce petition. He further said that he had seen enough of prison life and wished to live with his family.
State Counsel opposed the appeal saying that the learned Magistrate had sentenced within the tariff and could not be faulted on principspan>
The learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of 2 years imprisonment on the Appt’s co-accused, on the ground that he was a first offender.nder.
He disregarded the Appellant’s last conviction which had occurred after the offence before him. He then said:
“All the items in the present case were recovered except for 3 CD’s. But those to whom some items were sold must have lost out on
what they paid to the accused.
This was a daring break right under the nose of police. The accuseds also tried to dispose of the items in a daring fashion. One of
the consequences of the act, had the items not been recovered, would be that certain pending cases would have been halted and offenders
gone untried as exhibits would not be there.
Breaking is a serious offence and warrants a custodial sentence. Accused 2 is sentenced to 2½ yimprisonment consecutive tove to present
term.”
The maximum term for an offence of Office Breaking Entering and Larceny under section 300(a) of the Penal Code, is fourteen years imprisonment. The Appellant has a number of previous convictions, some for similar offences. He pleaded not guilty,
and was tried for the offence. The offence was committed jointly by all three accused (according to the confession of the Appellant)
on a police station exhibit room. The offence potentially had far-reaching effects on the prosecution of other offences. With no
discount due for a guilty plea, or for previous good character, I consider that the learned Magistrate was right in principle to
impose the sentence that he did. The sentence is neither manifestly excessive, nor wrong in principle.
For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
 an>
Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE
At Suva
7th May 2001
HAA0029j.01s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2001/22.html
