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

Ravuwai v State [2007] FJHC 55; HAA071-077.2007 (10 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal Nos: HAA 071-077 of 2007

Between:

LUKE RAVUWAI
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 3rd August 2007
Judgment: 10th August 2007

Counsel: Appellant in person
Mr S. Vodokisolomoni for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellant appeals against the sentences imposed in Criminal Cases 197/07, 193/07, 194/07, 195/07, 196/07 on the ground that the total sentence is harsh and excessive. The total sentence imposed, for the offences of criminal trespass, shop breaking, escaping from lawful custody, burglary and larceny from dwelling house, was 24 months and 20 days imprisonment.

At the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant also submitted that the convictions were wrong in law because his pleas of guilty were forced upon him by police and military pressure. In his letter of appeal to the court he did not raise this issue, but confined himself to appeal against sentence. Having perused the records, I find that he failed to make any complaint about police conduct at anytime after first call in the Magistrates’ Court. I also find that the charges were explained to him, that the facts disclose the offences and that there is no evidence at all of an equivocal plea.

In Case 193/07, he was charged with breaking into the shop of Mahesh Lal in Vuci, Nausori, and stealing food items worth $175. He pleaded guilty to the charge on the 19th of April 2007 after it was explained to him in the Fijian language and after he waived his right to counsel. He agreed to the facts which showed that he had entered the shop by cutting open the padlock on the main door. The groceries were recovered. He had 15 previous convictions.

In Case 194/07, he pleaded guilty to breaking into the shop of Deodat Maharaj and stealing items to the total value of $672. Again the padlock on the front grill door has been broken. None of the stolen items had been recovered.

In Case 195/07, he pleaded guilty to breaking into the poultry shed of Chandar Sergan and stealing 932 eggs, valued at $599. The offence was committed on the 10th of February 2007 and there was no recovery of the stolen eggs.

In Case 196/07, he was charged with escaping from lawful custody. The facts were that on the 24th of December 2006, while in custody at the Nausori Police Station cell, cut the lower end of the cell grill door with a hack saw and escaped. He was in custody for a case of shop-breaking and was to appear in court on the 27th of December 2007. He was not arrested until the 16th of April 2007, by which time he had committed the other offences charged.

In Case 197/07 he was charged with criminal trespass. On the 11th of September 2005 at Naselai, Nausori, he entered the compound of Mamood Khan by night, without lawful excuse. The facts disclosed that he was drunk and that while trespassing he was seen by a night watchman who knew him.

In Case 198/07, he was charged with criminal trespass into the compound of Faizal Mohammed Khan. Again, he was seen by a night watchman. In Case 199/97, he was charged with breaking into the house of Qalita Ritova and stealing items valued at $369.00. He committed the offence between the 2nd and the 3rd days of February 2007, at Kuku, Nausori.

All these cases were dealt with together by the learned Magistrate. The previous convictions date from 1994, and are for breaking and entering offences, or robbery with violence.

In mitigation he said he was married with children, and with aging parents. He said he had resorted to crime to help his family.

The learned Magistrate correctly identified the tariff for breaking and entering cases as 2-3 years imprisonment. After adjusting for aggravating and mitigating circumstances, he sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment on each file. They were to be concurrent to each other but consecutive to any existing prison sentence.

In relation to the offences of criminal trespass the learned Magistrate took into account the tariff of 1-9 months imprisonment and started at 1 month. After allowing for the guilty plea he sentenced him to 20 days imprisonment.

In relation to the burglary offence (in Case No. 199/07) the learned Magistrate considered the tariff of 2-3 years imprisonment (Navitalai Seru v. The State Crim. App. No. 84/05) and started at 2½ years imprisonment. After reducing for the guilty plea he arrived at 20 months imprisonment, to be served consecutive to the other sentences.

In relation to the offence of escaping from lawful custody, the learned Magistrate considered the tariff of 6-12 months imprisonment (State v. Nemani Kadredre HAM 16/03S and Isimeli Rokovucago v. Reg. Crim. App. 22/80) and after reducing for the guilty plea he arrived at 4 months imprisonment. This was to be served consecutively.

The total sentence to be served is 3 years, 6 months and 20 days. The State says that this reflects the totality of the offending and is an appropriate sentence.

I agree. The learned Magistrate’s approach to sentence on each file was wholly principled and appropriate. The Appellant appears to have made a habit of breaking into houses in the Nausori area. His frequent stays in prison appear to have had no effect in dissuading him from following a life of crime. Nevertheless, the sentences imposed all of which were imposed after deduction were made for the guilty pleas, will at least have the effect of preventing the Appellant from re-offending in the next 3 years, 6 months and 20 days.

I decline to interfere with the sentence. This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
10th August 2007