|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 150 OF 2013
STATE
-v-
DAVID LOCKINGTON
NACANI TIMO
Counsels : Ms. S. Kiran and Mr. J. B. Niudamu for the prosecution
Ms. C. Choy for the 2nd accused
Third accused in person
Date of Sentence : 30 June 2014
SENTENCE
FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree, No. 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence
SUNIA RORAQIO, DAVID LOCKINGTON and NACANI TIMO with another, in company of each other on the 18th of July, 2013 at Lautoka in the Western Division, robbed FALVIANO PISONI of assorted mobile phones valued at $5,900.00, 8 assorted Gold wrist watches valued at $131,000.00, assorted jewelleries valued at $8,500.00, 2 assorted bags valued at $5,500.00, cash $2,500.00 FJ dollars, $700.00 US dollars (converted $1,260.00 FJ), 1000 EURO dollars (converted $2,215.00 FJD), $500.00 NZ dollars (converted $679.00 FJD), $1,000.00 AUS dollars (converted $1,779.99 FJD), $30.00 HK dollars (converted $6.72 FJD), $2.00 SINGAPORE dollars (converted $2.65 FJD), assorted liquors valued at $140.00 all to the total value of $159,483.36.
The complainant in this case is Mr. Flaviano Pisoni, businessman of 2 Savala Place in Lautoka.
On the 18th of July 2013, at about 12.30 am, the complainant was sleeping in his bedroom when he heard the alarm on. He came to the door and saw the 4 figures were standing outside of the house. He also told them that there was nothing in the house.
The accused then went towards the back of the house then suddenly threw a stone through the kitchen window causing it to break. The stone hit the complainant on his hand and on his sides. The accused with others then entered the house through the broken window.
One of the persons entering the house then got hold of the complainant's neck and asked him for the money. He gave them his wallet containing cash and cards. The accused took the cash but complainant requested for his passports and cards which were returned to him. The accused ransacked the house and took the items through the same window they came in from.
The complainant then raised alarm and the matter was reported to police by his house girl.
Upon checking the house, he found the following items missing:
- Assorted mobile phones valued $5,900.00
- 8 wrist watches (Rolex – Original and replica) valued $131,000.00
- Assorted jewelleries valued $8,500.00.
- 2 bags valued $5,500.00
- F$2,500.00 cash
- US$700, 1,000 Euro, NZ$500, AUS$1,000, HK$30.00, SGP$2.00
On the 22nd of July 2013, the accused was arrested from his house in Nadonumai where by the following items were recovered from him:
- 1 Nokia phone
- 1 Digicel Blackberry mobile phone
- 1 Rolex wrist watch
He was interviewed under caution at the Lautoka Police Station where he admitted committing the offence with other then going to Suva via Rakiraki with Rupeni Vuli Suguturaga, Susana and another person. He also admitted committing the offence in his charge statement.
He was subsequently charged with one count of aggravated robbery and brought to court.
"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 treat 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 ring leader in a group is an aggravating factor. If the victims are vulnerable, such as elderly people and person providing public transport, that will be an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors may include the volume of items 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 sentence, personal circumstances of offender, first offence of violence, voluntary of property taken, a minor part, and lack of planning involved."
"The maximum penalty for robbery with violence under Penal Code is life imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery under the Crimes Decree is 20 years imprisonment. Although the maximum sentence under the Decree has been reduced to 20 years imprisonment, in my judgment, the tariff of 8-14 years imprisonment established under the old law can continue to apply under the new law. I hold this for two reasons. Firstly, the established tariff of 8-14 years under the old law falls below the maximum sentence of 20 years under new law. Secondly, under the new law, aggravated robbery is made an indictable offence, triable only in the High Court, which means the Executive's intention is to continue to treat the offence seriously."
"The appellant suggests that the reference to the fact the plea of guilty was entered late means he was not given full credit for it. Whenever an accused person admits his guilt by pleading guilty, the court will give some credit for that as a clear demonstration of remorse. However, the amount that will be given is not fixed and will depend on the offence charged and the circumstances of each case. The maximum credit is likely to be given for offences such as rape and personal violence because it saves the victim having to relive the trauma in the witness box. At the other end of the scale, little or no credit may be given if the evidence is so overwhelming that the accused has no real option but to admit it. Where, as here, the accused has admitted the offence and the receipt of his share of the money, the delay in pleading guilty must reduce the value of the plea considerably."
"The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is 'just and appropriate'. The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; "when... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behavior and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences."
Summary
Sudharshana De Silva
JUDGE
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for the 2nd Accused
Third Accused in person
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2014/484.html
