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

State v Koroi [2010] FJHC 488; HAC138.2010 (4 November 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 138 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

ACA KOROI

Counsels: Mr. Filimoni Laca for the State
Accused in Person

Date of Hearing: 19th October 2010
Date of Sentence: 04th November 2010

SENTENCE

1. The accused Aca Koroi was charged by the Director of Public Prosecution as follows:
   

"SAKIUSA BASA, RAYMOND JOHNSON, VILIAME FATAFEHI, ACA KOROI and GABRIEL WAQA are charged with the following offence:

Statement of Offence

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crime Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence (b)

SAKIUSA BASA on the 17th day of July, 2010 in the Nasinu Division with RAMOND JOHNSON, VILIAME FATAFEHI, ACA KOROI and GABRIEL WAQA stole a AKITA DVD brand deck valued $120.00, LA brand black cap with LA written in silver valued $45.00, 1 x Nike black jacket with left arm sleeve torn with nail valued $200.00, 1 x Nokia brand silver phone valued $190.00, 1 FILA brand white canvas valued $190.00, 1 golden 2kt rope chain valued $800.00, 2 x Crest Chicken No. 14 and 16 valued at $17.00, 1 black plate sunglass valued at $80.00, 1 wrist watch Seiko valued $180.00, 1 x citizen golden plated square frame valued $180.00 and cash of $40.00 all to the total value of $2,356.00 from PATRICK CHANDRA".

2. The accused above named pleaded guilty to the charge on the 17th September 2010, when the summary of facts was submitted by the learned State Counsel on the 19th September 2010. He didn't agree with certain issues and demanded the service of a Counsel. Court requested the Legal Aid Commission to assist the accused in the case. Ms. S Vaniqi appeared with very short notice and assisted the accused and the Court. After explaining all the issues in the summary of facts accused admitted the same.
   
3. After due consideration the Court found that the plea of the accused to be unequivocal he was convicted as charged.
   
4. Aca Koroi you are convicted for aggravated robbery punishable under Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crime Decree No. 44 of 2009. Now I proceed to impose sentence on you.
   
5. As per Section 311 (1) (a) the maximum sentence is 20 years imprisonment.
   
6. Now I consider the tariff for the offence of Aggravated Robbery. In State vs Elia Manoa Criminal case No. HAC 108 of 2009 & HAC 61 of 2010 Justice Goundar had imposed 10 years imprisonment. In State v Raymond Johnson HAC 120 of 2008 Justice Goundar commenced the sentence at 8 years and imposed 10 years imprisonment. In State vs Rasaqio (2010) FJHC 287 Justice P Madigan had imposed 9 years imprisonment.
   
7. In State vs Rokonabete & Others (2008) FJHC 226 Court summarized the principles to be:
   

"The dominant factor in assessing seriousness for any types of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened. The degree of injury to the victim or the nature of and duration of threats are also relevant in assessing the seriousness of an offence of robbery with violence. If a weapon is involved in the use or threat of force that will always be an important aggravating feature. Group offending will aggravate an offence because the level of intimidation and fear caused to the victim will be greater. It may also indicate planning and gang activity. Being the ringleader in a group is an aggravating factor. If the victims are vulnerable, such as elderly people and persons providing public transport, then that will be an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors may include the value of times taken and the fact that an offence was committed whilst the offender was on bail.

The seriousness of an offence of robbery is mitigated by factors such as a timely guilty plea, clear evidence of remorse, ready co-operation with the police, response to previous sentences, personal circumstances of the offender, first offence of violence, voluntary return of property taken, playing a minor part, and lack of planning involved".

8. Considering all these case the tariff for Aggravated Robbery of this kind is 8 years to 14 years.
   
9. State Counsel moves for a severe punishment to this offence and support with facts and authorities.
   
10. The Counsel from Legal Aid Commission who appears on the request of the Court submits that you should be given a chance to rehabilitate in other words a non custodial sentence.
    
11. Now I consider the facts of the case. As per the summary of facts submitted by the State.
    

"On the 17th day of July 2010, at about 2 am in the morning, whilst in the comfort of his bedroom sleeping, the complainant was awoken by the forceful entry of the accused together with four other Fijian men into his bedroom. These 5 men forced open the front gate of the complainant's house and also forced themselves into the house through the main door in order to gain access.

They had forced themselves in armed with a piece of wood and knife and warned the complainant not to do anything and threatened to kill him. Furthermore, they assaulted the complainant by hitting him with the handle of the knife and at the same time forcing him to show him the whereabouts of his money and his wallet.

The complainant in his frightened state replied that he did not have money in which they then asked for the complainant's daughter threatening him to give the money and laptop. The accused continued to assault the complainant while the other Fijian men ransacked his home.

When further asked about his wallet, the complainant replied that it was on top of a table. One of the accused's accomplices replied it was not there. The complainant was then told to get his wallet and while he got up, one of them punched him on the face. The complainant was further assaulted again and in helplessness, he lay pretended to be dead.

The accused and his accomplices then finally left the house after about 20 minutes and went out through the gate.

The following items were stolen from the complainant's home at the robbery:

1 Akita brand DVD deck valued at $120.00

1 black cap with "LA" written in silver valued at $45.00

1 Nike black jacket with left lower arm sleeve torn valued at $200.00

1 Nokia brand silver mobile phone with camera and Bluetooth valued at $540.00

1 white "Fila" running shoe (size 12) valued at $190.00

1 golden 21 kt rope chain valued at $800.00

2 crest chicken No. 14 and 16 valued at $17.00

1 black "Dolce & Gabbana" sunglasses valued at $80.00

1 "Seiko" brand silver watch valued at $180.00

1 "Citizen" brand golden plated watch valued at $180.00

Items recovered from the said robbery belonging to the complainants were:

1 Nokia brand silver mobile phone with camera and Bluetooth valued $540.00

1 Nike black jacket with left lower arm sleeve torn valued at $200.00.

In total, only $740.00 worth of items has been recovered from the $1,816.00 worth of items that was forcefully taken from the complainant's home on that morning".

12. Considering the facts of the case it reminds an observation made by Justice Goundar in State vs Raymond Johnson (supra). His Lordships states:
    

"Home invasion robbery is a serious offence. People take shelter and security in their homes. Robberies in homes instill fear in the community. In this country people live in homes like prisons with iron grills and padlocks on windows and doors. Yet they get invaded by offenders who have no regard for the law and order.

Home invasion robbery is too prevalent in our community and perpetrators of this offence must expect condign punishment. The court has a duty to protect the public by imposing punishment that will deter this kind of offending".

13. Your Counsel submits that you were in bad company of persons and you had been misled. You are 28 years old, married with two children aged 10 years & 5 years. It shows that you have reasonable experience in life.
    
14. Considering the nature of the offence committed I commence your sentence at 8 years imprisonment.
15. Now I consider the aggravating factors.
    
    • (a) You have invaded to the complainant's house at the wee ours of the day i.e. 2.00am.
      
    • (b) You and the gang threatened the victim with death.
      
    • (c) You and the gang have assaulted the victim.
      
16. Considering the aggravating factors I increase your sentence by 3 years. Now your sentence is 11 years.
    
17. Now I consider your mitigating circumstances.
    
    • (a) You have pleaded guilty at early stage of the trial.
      
    • (b) Your are married with two children
      
    • (c) You are remorseful
      
    • (d) You have co-operated with Police at the investigation.
      
18. Considering your mitigating circumstance I reduce 4 years. Now your sentence is 7 years imprisonment.
    
19. Your Counsel has made a lengthy plea to support your sentence. Considering the nature of the offence I am reluctant to impose a non custodial sentence. After giving serious consideration to your mitigation I impose this sentence.
    
20. Considering the nature of the plea by you and your Counsel, l am not imposing a non-parole period for you. You get yourself rehabilitated by the prison and earn your release as per the prison regulations.
    
21. You are sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
    
22. You may appeal to the Court of Appeal within 30 days.
    

S Thurairaja
Judge

At Suva

Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Applicant in Person