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

State v Waqasaqa [2004] FJHC 459; HAC0016.2004L (13 September 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC0016 OF 2004L

THE STATE

V

JOJI WAQASAQA

Mr. K. Tunidau for the State
Accused in Person

Hearing: 6 September 2004
Sentence: 13 September 2004

SENTENCE

Joji Waqasaqa, you have pleaded guilty and have been convicted of the offences of robbery with violence, wrongful confinement and unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

The facts which you have accepted are that on 31 July 2003 at about 5.00am, the security officers of Armourguard were in the process of transferring money from Armourguard vaults, at Lautoka to a van to take it to Nadi Airport.

Your 5 co-offenders surprised the Armourguard security officers. They were threatened with a knife and iron rod. One of the security guards tried to close the vault door but was hit on the head with a bar, and another security guard in the vault was hit on the leg. Both suffered injuries, one a cut on the head and the other a swelling on the leg.

A total of $1,329.487.25 was stolen.

Prior to the commission of the offence, you drove some of your co-offenders from Suva to Lautoka in your taxi. At the residence of one of your co-offender in Lautoka, you attended a briefing on the plan to rob the Armourguard office. The plan included the hijacking of another vehicle to ferry the robbers to and from the Armourguard office.

Before the robbery, two of your co-offenders hired a van from Lautoka town to Natabua. On the way at Field 40, one of your co-offenders asked the driver, Ram Sami Naidu to stop whereupon your co-offenders tied him up and handcuffed him to the back of the van. Five others co-offenders later joined the two co-offenders and they then drove to the Armourguard office at Veitari in Lautoka. Some time later, they abandoned the van with the driver still handcuffed inside and escaped.

After the robbery you drove back to Suva with some of your co-offenders after picking them up from Rifle Range, Lautoka.

You were arrested at your home in Newtown, Suva and a search of your house recovered F$6,050.00 and 296,000YEN.

You are 34 years of age, having been born on 6 July 2004. You are married with 3 sons, the eldest being in class 4, another in class 1 and the youngest still at home. Your wife is unemployed and prior to your imprisonment for other matters, you were a taxi driver and sole breadwinner.

You are currently in prison having been sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on 5 March 2004 for the offence of robbery with violence. That offence having being committed whilst you were on bail awaiting trial in this matter. Whilst in mitigation, you expressed concern for your innocent family and say that you realized that crime does not pay. Quite clearly this realization is indeed very recent. There is nothing in your record that gives hope that you have in fact made such a realization or that you have shown, todate, any signs of rehabilitating yourself.

For the offences that you have committed, you must receive a custodial sentence.

The Fiji Court of Appeal in Raymond Isikeli Singh & Ors v. The State – Crim. Appeal No. AAU0008 of 2000S, the court considered with approval the decision of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand in R v Mako [2000] NZCA 407; [2000] 2 NZLR 170 and said:

“The Court gave some views as to the weight which was appropriate to place on certain factors and suggested what it referred to as “starting point”. The court noted that for arriving at a starting point, a combination of factors is significant and for the purposes of this case, it is enough to say the court held that starting points for serious armed robbery of commercial premises start at 6 or more years. Where there is a greater risk of harm or actual violence is used, the starting point was said to be 8 years or more. The court noted that in the case of very serious armed robberies, a starting point of about 10 years would be appropriate. Starting points are no more than that. The appropriate penalty must depend upon the impact of the significant factors in the case.”

Applying the facts as detailed above to the principles as expressed by the Court of Appeal, I think it is appropriate in this matter for there to be a starting point of 9 years.

I note your plea of guilty and for that, I give you a discount of 3 years resulting in a sentence of 6 years.

The offence however is aggravated by the wrongful confinement of the van driver, Ram Sami Naidu, the violence used to the Armourguard employees, the pre-planning and the amount of money involved coupled with the small amount of money recovered.

Prior of the commission of these offences you have, since 1990 been convicted of 2 charges of robbery with violence and 3 counts of robbery.

I am of the opinion that the aggravating factors warrant a resulting sentence of 8 years imprisonment.

In the course of mitigation, you indicated to the court your willingness to co-operate with the prosecution, to assist in your co-offenders being apprehended and brought to justice. I note that you have subsequently reneged on that expressed intention and accordingly, no consideration is given to that in fixing an appropriate sentence.

In mitigation, you indicated that your role was merely as a taxi driver conveying some of the co-accused from Suva to Lautoka and from Lautoka to Suva.

The facts to which you have agreed clearly indicate that you participated in the planning meeting at Lautoka prior to the commission of the offence and you received some of the proceeds of the robbery.

You embarked on a joint enterprise and accordingly you are liable for the acts done in pursuant of that joint enterprise by all of your co-offenders. You have acknowledged that to be so by your plea of guilty to the charges of wrongful confinement and unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

You have been in custody since 5 March 2004 and accordingly your sentences will date from that date.

Sentence

With respect to the charge of robbery with violence, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 8 years and on the count of wrongful confinement to imprisonment for a term of 1 year and to the third count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle to imprisonment for a term of 6 months.

The sentences are to be served concurrently and are to date from 5 March 2004.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
13 September 2004