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

Tabakau v The State [2003] FJHC 121; HAA0019J.2003S (18 July 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0019 OF 2003S

Between:

JESONI TABAKAU
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Mr. A. Ravindra-Singh for State

Hearing: 11th July 2003
Judgment: 18th July 2003

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was tried in the Suva Magistrates’ Court on the 16th of September 2002 on the following charge:

Statement of Offence

HOUSE BREAKING ENTERING AND LARCENY: Contrary to Section 300(a) of the Penal Code, Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

JASONI TABANIKAU and MANOA LAQERE, between the 13th day and the 24th day of October, 2001 at Samabula in the Central Division, broke and entered into the dwelling house of CHARLIE KAMEA and stole therein 1 computer with accessories $3,000.00, 1 generator $4,500.00, 1 compressor with nail gun $2,500.00, 1 drill $500.00, 1 nail gun $750.00, tools with box $1,500.00, liquor $60.00, sky decoder $120.00, 3 wall hangings $150.00, vodaphone charger $75.00, 1 camphor wood box $1,000.00, 2 ceramic urns $600.00, 1 copper kettle $150.00, 1 microwave oven $500.00, 1 toaster $50.00, coffee table $150.00, 1 coffee machine $200.00, video deck $450.00, wall clock $50.00, iron $75.00, 4 pots $80.00, 3 carpets $800.00, bedsheets with blankets and accessories $2,000.00, 2 mats $150.00, assorted clothes $1,420.00, to the total value of $20,830.00, the property of the said CHARLIE KAMEA.

He was found guilty instead of receiving stolen property and sentenced to 24 months imprisonment on the 1st of April 2003. He now appeals against that sentence, saying that it was harsh and excessive and that his “plea of guilty” had not been taken into account. The State opposes the appeal.

The facts as disclosed by the evidence were that a Charlie Kamea returned to his house in Mead Road on the 24th of October to find it ransacked. Property to the total value of $22,000 was missing. The property included a computer which was later found, and which Mr. Kamea identified at the Samabula Police Station.

One Vicky Pranil Ganesh gave evidence that the Appellant had shown him a computer which he had bought for $500.00. The Appellant’s caution interview was tendered. In it, he denied breaking into the house of Charlie Kamea but admitted entering the house later through the windows. He admitted stealing the computer from the house and selling it to a man for $500.

The learned Magistrate found a case to answer. The Appellant gave evidence saying that he had been given the computer by one Manoa Laqere. He admitted receiving the stolen computer. Two other defence witnesses were called to confirm that the Appellant had received the computer and had sold it to a man called Vicky.

The learned Magistrate found the Appellant guilty of receiving stolen property. This he was entitled to do under the doctrine of recent possession. There was ample evidence that the Appellant had received the computer, knowing it was stolen.

Sentences for receiving stolen property in Fiji appear to range from 12 months imprisonment (where the value of the property is comparatively low) to 3 years imprisonment in cases where the property stolen has a high value, and there is an element of planning.

In this case the computer was worth $3,000 and there was evidence of planning from the caution interview. Further the Appellant was not entitled to the leniency normally shown to a first offender because of his list of previous convictions for offences such as robbery with violence and larceny. As I have said before, receivers deserve heavier sentences than thieves because the existence of receivers ensures a sure market for stolen items and thus encourages house-breaking, robbery and larceny offences.

In this case, the two year sentence was not harsh or excessive. It has been drawn to my attention that the committal warrant wrongly shows that the Appellant was convicted of House-breaking, Entering and Larceny. In fact he was convicted of receiving stolen property. Both the warrant and the previous convictions record should be amended accordingly. This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
18th July 2003