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

Koli v The State [2002] FJHC 134; HAA0047.2002S (17 July 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: HAA0047 OF 2002
{ Suva Magistrate’s Court Crim. Case No.: 756 of 2002 }

BETWEEN:

SITIVENI KOLI
APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Appellant - In Person
Respondent - Mr. N Nand

JUDGMENT

On 16^th April 2002 the appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty of the offence of Act with Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm Contrary to Section 224 of the Penal Code.

The particulars of offence are that SITIVENI KOLI, on the 1^st day of April 2002 at Suva in the Central Division, with intent to do grievous harm to Ram Sami s/o Surana did unlawfully strike the said Ram Sami s/o Surana with an iron rod.

The appellant who was not represented filed grounds of appeal in person. His grounds summarized are:

1. That the admitted facts do not disclose commission of any offence.
2. That the learned Magistrate failed to explain the elements of the offence to him.
3. That he was not told of his rights (which rights are not spelled out).
4. That the learned magistrate did not enquire into the motive for the way he acted.
   

At the hearing of the appeal the appellant only spoke about the sentence and asked the court to reduce his sentence. He basically mitigated again and repeated what he told the court below. He also adds that he has now learnt his lesson by being in prison.

The accused was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for this offence. On 17^th October 2001 he had been sentenced to twelve months imprisonment which was suspended for two years for the offence of Act with Intent to Cause Grievous Harm. The present offence was committed before expiry of six months of operational period. After giving the appellant opportunity to explain why that sentence should not be activated, the learned Magistrate activated that suspended sentence to be served consecutive. Hence the effective term which the appellant would serve in prison is two years.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 1^st April 2002 the complainant and the appellant were working at a job site at National Stadium. They were repairing a drain. The complainant was the supervisor at the job site. The appellant swore at the complainant who asked the appellant why he swore. The appellant picked up an iron rod and struck the complainant twice.

THE SENTENCE

The learned Magistrate convicted the accused after listening to the mitigation. Custodial sentence was inevitable in the present case. First, the accused had a previous conviction for similar offence. Secondly, the complainant was hit twice with an iron rod which is a dangerous object to use. Thirdly, the complainant was hit twice – once after he had fallen down and therefore in an extremely helpless and vulnerable position in not being able to defend himself or offer resistance. Fourthly the complainant was rendered unconscious and admitted to hospital for two days which gives an idea of the force behind the blows. Lastly the attack was an unprovoked assault on a building supervisor who was therefore humiliated before other employees.

The learned Magistrate activated the suspended sentence to be served consecutive. He is empowered to do this by virtue of section 30(1) of the Penal Code which deals with activation of suspended sentences.

I find the sentence is neither wrong in principle nor excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

{ Jiten Singh }
JUDGE

At Suva
17^th July 2002