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

Codrokadroka v The State [2002] FJHC 167; HAA0067.2002S (9 August 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: HAA0067 OF 2002
{ Nausori Magistrate’s Court Crim. Case No.: 330 of 2002 }

BETWEEN:

ISOA CODROKADROKA
APPELLANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Appellant - In Person
Respondent - Mr. D Prasad

JUDGMENT

On 25^th June 2002 the appellant on his plea of guilty was convicted and sentenced to two and half years imprisonment for the offence of LARCENY Contrary to Section 262 and 269 of the Penal Code by the Nausori Magistrate’s Court.

The brief facts were that a tourist from New Zealand had got on a bus at Rakiraki to travel to Suva. He placed his baggage in the side carrier of the bus. When he reached Suva he found his baggage missing. The total value of missing items was $3638.00. It included his passport and a heart beat monitor.

The matter was reported to police. The items valued $3438 were recovered from accused’s house at Wainibuka.

The appellant has twenty previous convictions going back to 1979. The learned Magistrate in his sentencing remarks referred to appellant’s lack of interest in reforming himself and the consequences his acts could have on tourism. Those remarks are very apt indeed.

The learned Magistrate however made no reference to the accused’s guilty plea or to the fact that the majority of the items have been recovered. These are significant mitigating factors when one is sentencing in a case such as this.

An accused who is sentenced is entitled to know the reasons behind the sentence. In the present case he would be left with the impression that his guilty plea and recovery of items was not taken into reckoning in sentencing him.

In Iqbal Koya v. The State – Criminal Appeal HAA0048 of 1999 at Labasa and James Stolz & Others v. The State – Criminal Appeal HAA0050 of 1999 at Labasa Justice Fatiaki as he then was referred to lack of reference to the plea of guilty among other things as a reason for his reducing sentences in those two cases.

The circumstances of the offence are serious. The appellant struck at the heart of a common mode of transport in Fiji. Large number of people in Fiji travel by buses after placing their baggage in side carriers, which are normally open. It is impossible to keep an eye all the time on one’s baggage. The appellant took advantage of an unsuspecting tourist to remove his baggage and cause him inconvenience and resulting anxiety.

Had the learned Magistrate referred to the plea of guilty and recovery of items this Court would not have been minded to review the sentence. However, in the absence of such reference I assume the learned Magistrate overlooked two relevant material factors in sentencing the appellant. Hence some adjustment to the sentence is inevitable. Accordingly the sentence of two and a half (2¹/₂) years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with one of one and a half (1¹/₂) years imprisonment. The appellant is sentenced to one and a half years imprisonment with effect from 25^th of June 2002.

{ Jiten Singh }
JUDGE

At Suva
9^th August 2002