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

State v Katafono [2002] FJHC 266; HAC0008.1999S (2 October 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 008 OF 1999S

STATE

V

FREDERICK KATAFONO

Counsel: Mr D. Prasad for State
Mr A. Wolf for Accused

SENTENCE

Frederick Katafono, you are charged and have pleaded guilty to, one count of Robbery with Violence, contrary to section 293(1)(a) of the Penal Code. On the 1st of February 1999, you with four others robbed the Raniga Jewellery Shop on Cumming Street and stole $58,123.04 worth of gold jewellery. You yourself were found in possession of $23,693.32 worth of jewellery.

I have taken into account all that counsel has said on your behalf. In particular I note that you have already been tried once, and have served two years in prison, before you were granted bail in this court after your appeal against conviction was allowed by the Court of Appeal. I also take into account your guilty plea, which has saved court time and has saved witnesses from having to give evidence. I also take into account that this is a very old case which has been hanging over your head since 1999.

However robbery with violence is a serious offence. The robbery of jewellery shops and banks not only cause fear in the community, such robberies lead to the loss of investor confidence in Fiji which then has an impact on employment opportunities and poverty in this country.

The tariff for armed robbery in Fiji is four to seven years. In this case, cane knives were used by the others participating in the robbery, and the value of the jewellery stolen was high. I choose as my starting point therefore, 6 years imprisonment. Aggravating features are the weapons, the planning and premeditation, the damage caused to the show glass and the fear caused to the employees of the shop. I increase the sentence to 7 years. The mitigating factors are the age of the case, the fact that all the jewellery in your possession has been returned to the shop, and the evidence of good character. I accept that the list of previous convictions relate to conduct after the commission of this offence, and that the remaining offence of Drunk and Disorderly Conduct is a minor offence and should be disregarded for the purpose of this sentence. I further accept the evidence submitted of real reform in prison, the determined attempts you have made to better your life, and the fact that you are now held in high regard by the Prisons Department where you have forged positive changes for your former fellow inmates. These circumstances personal to you, are truly extraordinary and are an indication of your strength of character and faith. For these mitigating factors, I reduce your sentence substantially by 4 years. I therefore arrive at a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. However you have already served 2½ years in prison, either in remand or as part of your sentence for this same offence. In the circumstances, it would be unjust to impose a further term of 3 years imprisonment, which would have the effect of lengthening your total sentence to 6 years imprisonment.

For these reasons I consider it unjust to order any further period of incarceration. I sentence you to 2 years imprisonment, suspended for 3 years. If in the next 3 years you re-offend, you will be liable to be sentenced, not only for the new offence, but also for the offence in this case.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
2nd October 2002