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

Nausa v The State [2004] FJHC 481; HAA0093.2004L (8 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0093 OF 2004L

ISOA NAUSA
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. S. Qica for the Respondent

Hearing & Ruling: 8 October 2004

EXTEMPORE RULING

The appellant was on the 28th April 2004 convicted at Ba Magistrates Court for the charge of larceny and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Particulars are as follows:

Statement of Offence

LARCENY: Contrary to section 259 and 262 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

ISOA NAUSA on the 27^th day of April 2004 at Varoka, Ba in the Western Division stole $490.00 in monies the property of AGHAR KHAN S/O ANKAR KHAN.

The particulars as provided to the Learned Magistrate were that on the 27^th April 2004 at about 3.45am at Ba town, the appellant being 24 years of age and unemployed of Nailaga, Ba, stole $490.00 in cash from the money box belonging to Aghar Khan, 60 year old businessman of Ba.

On that date and at that time, the accused who was drunk was in a light goods vehicle drinking with some of his friends. The appellant and his friends called into the Bridge Service Station at Ba town to buy cigarettes. The appellant arrived at the Service Station and he saw the two attendants were asleep. He then picked a stick, which was sold as firewood at the Service Station, used to lever the moneybox open. He then picked the money, tied in a rubber band from the moneybox and ran away.

On his arrest, the appellant admitted the allegation and was charged for the offence of larceny. No money was recovered.

Before the Learned Magistrate the appellant in mitigation submitted that he was 24 years of age, came out of prison on the 28^th March 2004, he just started farming, his mother was sick and he sought a suspended sentence.

Before this court, the appellant submits that since his imprisonment his father has died. He wants to get married. He wants to work the family farm and he has completely reformed himself by becoming a religious man and from the Prison Rehabilitation Programme.

Whilst I would like to think that is true, regrettably, the history of the appellant does not suggest it is. He is a 24-year-old young man who comes with 24 prior convictions, 10 of which are for the offence of larceny between September 2000 and December 2002. Whilst he has been sentenced to periods of imprisonment in the past, he has also received the benefit of bonds from time to time.

I have been referred to the decision of Mr. Justice Winter in Viliame Cavuilagi v The State – Crim. Appeal No. HAA0031 of 2004S where His Lordship considered the tariff for recidivist offending in matters such as this and His Lordship concluded that repeat offenders can expect a sentence of at least 2 years imprisonment.

This appellant is most certainly a repeat offender. I see nothing in what has been placed before me that would in anyway suggest that the period of imprisonment of 2 years imposed by the Learned Magistrate was harsh and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
8 October 2004