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

Reaza v State [2009] FJHC 282; HAA042.2009 (23 December 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA 042/2009

MOFID KASIN REAZA

V

STATE

Counsels: Mr. S. Sharma for the Appellant
Ms. N. Tikoisuva for the Respondent

Hearing: 4th December, 2009
Judgment: 23rd December, 2009

JUDGMENT

1. On 10th July 2009, the appellant (accused), at the Suva Magistrate Court, pleaded guilty to the following charge:

Statement of Offence

GIVING FALSE INFORMATION TO A PUBLIC SERVVANT: Contrary to Section 143(a) of Penal Code, Cap. 17

Particulars of Offence

MOFID KASIN REAZA s/o MOHAMMED YUSUF on the 10th day of June 2009 at Suva in the Central Division did give to a person employed in the Public Service namely Detective Constable Number 2524 ILIESA VAKARAU of Fiji Police Force that the said MOFID KASIN REAZA s/o Mohammed Yusuf gave information that he was robbed of $7580.00 cash by two Fijian boys at Walu Bay, Suva, the information he knew to be false, intending thereby to cause the said Detective Constable Number 2524 ILIESA VAKARAU to conduct investigation which he ought not to have done, if the true state of facts in respect of such information given were made know to him.

2. The court record showed that before the charge was put to the accused, his right to counsel was explained to him. He waived his right to counsel. The charge was then read and explained to him, and he said he understood the same. He pleaded guilty to the charge. The prosecutor read his summary of facts to the court. The accused admitted the prosecution’s summary of facts. On the basis of that, the court convicted him as charged.

3. The brief facts of the case were as follows. On 10th June 2009, at about 9.53 pm, the accused reported at Central Police Station that two unknown Fijian youths robbed him of $7, 580, and a Colonial Bank ATM card, at Walu Bay, on the same evening. His report was formally received by the Police, and an investigation carried out. His statements were formally taken by the Police. He said, he was driving taxi registration no. LT 1740 from Navua to Lami, where he picked two Fijian youths. These youths later robbed him at Walu Bay.

4. The Colonial Bank ATM card belonged to the accused’s father. On 11th June 2009, the father put a stop on the account of the stolen ATM card, and asked for a print out. The printout showed the $7,580 was withdrawn before the robbery. The father confronted the accused, wherein he admitted he took the money, and made a false report to the police. He was later charged for “giving false information to a police officer”.

5. The accused was a first offender. He said nothing during his plea in mitigation. On 30th July 2009, Mr. S. Sharma appeared as defence counsel, and gave the accused’s plea in mitigation. He was 25 years old and employed as a taxi driver. He looks after his elderly parents, and the schooling of a sister. He is the sole breadwinner. He pleaded guilty and is a first offender. He had spent a week in custody. On 12th August 2009, the Suva Magistrate Court delivered a written sentence and sentenced the accused to 4 months prison.

6. On 14th August 2009, the accused appealed against conviction and sentence. He advanced six grounds of appeal. On conviction, he complained that he wasn’t given enough time to seek legal advice. On sentence, the five grounds could be distilled into one, that is, the sentence was harsh and excessive, given his background.

7. When the appeal was heard on 4th December 2009, defence counsel withdrew his appeal against conviction. He said, the accused was properly convicted in this case. I agree with him. He waived his right to counsel. Charge was read and explained to him. He understood it. He pleaded guilty to the charge. He agreed with the prosecution’s summary of facts. As a result, the court convicted him as charged. In my view, the learned Resident Magistrate followed the proper procedure, and properly convicted the accused, on 10th July 2009.

8. As to the sentence, the accused complained, it was harsh and excessive. In this case, the accused stole $7,580 from his father by using his ATM card, to take the money from his account. He then lied to the police that two Fijian youths stole the same from him. Police’s time and resources were wasted, as a result of the accused’s lie. At the time of the sentence, the $7,580 had not being repaid to the father. In my view, a short sharp prison sentence of 4 months prison was appropriate, at the time, that is, on 12th August 2009. It was necessary to teach the accused not to waste the police’s time.

9. However, on the hearing of the appeal on 4th December 2009, much has changed. The accused has repaid his father the $7,580 he stole from him earlier. He has apologized to him. He is a 1st offender. He pleaded guilty to the offence. He is looking after his elderly parents and a sister. He is the sole breadwinner, as a taxi driver. I will give him a second chance to reform himself, and be a good citizen. The 4 months prison sentence, dated 12th August 2009, is set aside. He is fined $700, to be paid forthwith, in default, 3 months imprisonment. The accused’s appeal on sentence succeeds to the above extent.

Salesi Temo
Acting Judge

AT Suva
23rd December 2009