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

Namudu v State [2010] FJHC 53; HAA016.2009 (23 February 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAA 016 of 2009

BETWEEN:

MAIKA NAMUDU
VOLIVIO KOROI BOLA
The Appellants

AND:

THE STATE
The Respondent

Counsel: Mr. T Lee for the 1st Appellant
2nd Appellant in Person
Mr. M Kaisamy for the State

Date of Hearing: 22 February 2010
Date of Judgment: 23 February 2010

JUDGMENT

[1] The appellants were convicted on their own pleas of guilty to one count each of robbery with violence and unlawful use of motor vehicle. They were sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for robbery with violence and 4 months imprisonment for unlawful use of motor vehicle, to be served concurrently.

[2] The appellants appeal against the severity of the total sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

[3] The facts were that on 25 September 2009 at about 10.30p.m., the first appellant hired the victim’s taxi from the Labasa town to take him to Namoli village. On his way he picked up the second appellant from the road side. They convinced the victim to divert to an isolated location. The first appellant punched the victim on the neck. The victim got out of the taxi and ran towards the main road to raise alarm. The second appellant chased the victim and assaulted him. They stole his watch, cash and taxi meter, and then fled in his taxi. The taxi was later abandoned.

[4] The victim sustained physical injuries. His upper lip was swollen and he received abrasions on his knees and elbow.

[5] The taxi meter and $5.00 were recovered. The victim’s watch, wallet and $79.00 remained unrecovered.

[6] In his sentencing remarks, the learned Magistrate picked 4 years as his starting. He subtracted two years for the early guilty pleas and previous good character. He then increased the sentence by 1 year to reflect the actual use of force that resulted in injuries to the victim. In this regard, the appellants are fortunate that the learned Magistrate did not consider that the attack was on a public transport provider to justify an increase in the sentence.

[7] In Koroivuata v the State [2004] FJHC 139, HAA0064.2004 (20 August 2004), Winter J made the following observations:

Violent and armed robberies of taxi drivers are all too frequent. The taxi industry serves this country well. It provides a cheap vital link in short and medium haul transport. Taxi drivers are particularly exposed to the risk of robbery. They are defenceless victims. The risk of personal harm they take everyday by simply going about their business can only be ameliorated by harsh deterrent sentences that might instill in prospective muggers the knowledge that if they hurt a taxi driver they will receive a lengthy term of imprisonment.

[8] The sentences imposed on the appellants are below the tariff for the offence of robbery with violence. Despite the appellants early guilty pleas and previous good character, a deterrent sentence was called for to denounce the attack on the victim who was a taxi driver.

[9] The sentences are neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

[10] The appeals against sentence are dismissed.

Daniel Goundar
Judge

At Labasa
Tuesday 23 February 2010

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Appellants in Person