For the purpose of sentence, I accept the State’s concession that the facts do not disclose who the ringleaders were, in the Medium
Security Prison hostage-taking.
I would class this type of Wrongful Confinement as the wtype, and therefore start at twelve months imprisonment. This is because the
prisoners took took advantage of a political crisis in Fiji and of a generally unstable and volatile law and order situation in the
community. I do not consider the political situation to justify in any way the actions of the Appellants. Indeed their actions undoubtedly
contributed to the feelings of fear and insecurity that ordinary members of society felt, in the aftermath of the May 19th crisis.
It is proper that the courts deal severely with all persons who took advantage of a deteriorating law and order situation, to further
their own personal ends.
For this reason, twelve months imprisonment is a suitable starting-point. I give aount of two months imprisonment for the discipline
inflictelicted in prison, and a further one month for the guilty plea.
Taking into account the minimal role played by each Appellant, I give a further one months reduction. The aggravating features of
this case are that the Appellants used weapons to threaten the prison officers, and that the period of confinement was two days.
One can only imagine what the families of the hostages, and the hostages themselves, must have experienced in those two days. To
reflect these aggravating features, I consider it appropriate to add two months imprisonment.
The sentence I therefore arrive at is ten months imprisonment. Taking into account the lengths of imprisonment already served by almost
he Appellants, this period riod of imprisonment does not make a substantial difference to the totality of the sentences. Indeed because
of the separate nature of the offending, and the seriousness of it, I consider it proper to order that the sentences be served consecutively
to the periods of sentence already being served. The sentences passed on Counts 2 and 3 on the charge sheet remain and are unaffected
by this appeal. They are to be served concurrently to the sentences imposed on Count 1.
The sentence is therefore ten months imprisonment to be served consecutively to existing termimprisonment, but concurrently with the
terms imposed on thon the remaining counts.
Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE
At Suva
19th October 2001
Haa0057x.01s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2001/83.html
