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

Ratudina v The State [2003] FJHC 78; HAA0001.2003 (24 July 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIM. APP. NO. 1/03, 2/03, 3/03, 5/03 AND 6/03

BETWEEN:

WAISAKE RATUDINA

AND

THE STATE

Appellant in Person
Miss S. Shah for the State

Date of Judgment: 24 July 2003
Time of Judgment: 9.30 A.M.

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court on 11 June 2002 to 12 months imprisonment involving three (3) separate cases. In the first case of the shopbreaking, entering and larceny he received 12 months sentence. In respect of the other two of larceny, he received for both 6 months made concurrent to the 12 months sentence. In addition, the Learned Magistrate activated an earlier suspended sentence of 18 months for offences of night club breaking, entering and larceny, to run consecutive to the sentence of 12 months. In total the Appellant is serving a period of 30 months.

The appeal is against the 30 months sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate on the ground that it is harsh and excessive given the mitigation factors submitted to the Court. These include the fact that the Appellant has just reconciled with his wife and four children and that most of the items stolen had been recovered or returned. The Appellant also stated that he has given his undertaking to his wife that he will no longer lie or touch alcohol. And to illustrate his new lifestyle, he had readily admitted to the police that he was responsible for the offences for which he was charged. Finally, the Appellant argued that the Court has wrongfully activated his previous suspended sentence (in full) and added it to the sentence.

The State opposed the appeal. Counsel submitted the Learned Magistrate had considered all the facts, including mitigating factors advanced by the Appellant, before passing sentence indeed, the remarks in the proceedings, below shows that the Court had considered submission in mitigation by the Appellant.

This Court will not disturb the findings of the Magistrates Court. In the Court’s view, the Learned Magistrate had correctly assessed the gravity of the offences and duly reflected it in the sentences imposed. The Appellant has shown a propensity to indulge in offences of breaking, and larceny spanning some years. He has 7 previous convictions involving similar offences, the last one of which resulted in 18 months suspended sentence. The activation of the latter to run consecutive to the 12 months sentence imposed on the Appellant for his latest 3 cases in break-ins and larceny, is totally within the powers of the Learned Magistrate to exercise. If anything, it underlies the deep concern of the law enforcement agencies of the State, with the almost callous disregard for the respect for law resulting in careless attitude to its command, displayed so very clearly by the Appellants’ breach of his conditions for suspended sentence in this appeal.

The Appellant claims that he has turned a new page. If he is a changed man, and is determined to breathe a new life and a fresh beginning to his family and especially his children, then he should be prepared to serve out his 30 months sentence with humility. If he is able to do so, and emerge at the end with his dignity, he will surely find the new beginning and respect from his family and others.

For the reasons I have already explained, the appeal is dismissed.

F. Jitoko
JUDGE