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

Titifanua v The State [2004] FJHC 254; HAM0048D.2004S (22 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO: HAM0048 OF 2004S

Between:

HIAGI TITIFANUA
Applicant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 15th October 2004
Ruling: 22nd October 2004

Counsel: Mr. A. Vakaloloma for Applicant
Ms P. Madanavosa for State

RULING

This is an application for enlargement of time to appeal under section 310(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a total of 7 years imprisonment in respect of 51 different charges ranging from larceny, to burglary and damaging property.

The grounds for the application are that the learned Magistrate failed to advise the Applicant of his rights of appeal, and of the 28 time limitation on the appeal, the difficulties experienced by the Applicant in obtaining a copy of the judgment whilst in prison, and the delay before the judgment was finally provided to him.

State counsel objects to the application saying that the Applicant was told of his right of appeal and of the appeal period, and that in any event, there was no merit in the appeal.

Relevant matters in relation to this application are, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether or not the Applicant was represented at trial, whether or not he is a serving prisoner, his ability to obtain the judgment appealed from and any other ground which might constitute “good cause” for enlarging time.

Although there was no certified court record in this case, the Suva Magistrates’ Court, with commendable speed, dispatched all the Applicant’s files to the High Court so that they could be perused for the purposes of this application. The records show that the Applicant was represented by counsel (by a Mr. Laitia Tamata) who mitigated on behalf of the Applicant. The records also show that the 51 offences, to which the Applicant pleaded guilty, were all serious offences of larceny, burglary and related offences. The Applicant had two previous convictions for similar offences for which he had received non-custodial sentences.

Counsel said in mitigation, that the Applicant was 25 years old with a wife and a small son. He said that the Applicant had cooperated with the police and had pleaded guilty. He said that he committed the offences because he was facing “a financial crisis where he was in need of work and money to finance his young family.” On behalf of his client, he expressed remorse and said he wished to apologise to the victims.

All these matters were considered by the learned Magistrate. In particular weight was put on the fact that the Applicant had saved the court’s time by pleading guilty to 53 files. He then said:

“However at the same time the Court is really appalled and concerned with the unprecedented level of various larceny, burglary, office breaking, damaging of properties, unlawful use of motor vehicles offences committed by the Accused within such a short spate of time. It seems he went on a spree of committing crime and luckily the police were able to apprehend him. If this was not done then I am sure that more innocent property owners would have been his victims.”

The learned Magistrate then sentenced the Applicant to 2½ years imprisonment for each offence of larceny from car, 1½ years imprisonment for each offence of larceny from dwelling-house, 1½ years imprisonment for each offence of office-breaking, 1½ years imprisonment for the offences of burglary, 6 months imprisonment for the counts of damaging property, 6 months imprisonment for the unlawful use offences, 6 months imprisonment for driving without a licence and 1 year for each count of driving without Third Party Insurance. He ordered that all sentences to be served consecutively to each other, but concurrent to the sentences for unlawful use of motor vehicle and driving without a licence. The total of 9 years imprisonment he held, to be excessive and he reduced it further to 7 years imprisonment to be served concurrently to the term the Applicant was then serving. It appears that the Applicant was then serving 3½ years for another offence.

The court record shows that the Applicant was given 28 days to appeal, on the 7th of May 2003.

In the circumstances of this case, I am unable to say that the Applicant has shown good cause to justify the enlargement of time to appeal. The total term of imprisonment imposed on him was correct in approach and principle. The length of the term imposed was not excessive, given the number of offences he had committed, and the total value of the items stolen. He was told of his right to appeal, and of his 28 day time limit. He was represented by counsel and he himself was no stranger to the criminal justice system. In the circumstances I see no reason to enlarge time. This application is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
22nd October 2004