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

State v Tavu - Sentence [2021] FJHC 384; HAC339.2019 (16 December 2021)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 339 OF 2019

STATE

V

NAPOLIONI TAVU
MOHAMMED MUFIZ ALI

Counsel: Mr Z Zunaid for the State

Ms S Daunivesi for 1^st Accused

Mr T Varinava for 2^nd Accused

Date of Hearing: 7 & 13 December 2021
Date of Sentence: 16 December 2021

SENTENCE

[1] Both Accused have pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and theft.

[2] The facts are that between 29 September 2019 and 30 September 2019, the two Accused in the company of each other entered into the Max Value Supermarket at Nakasi as trespassers and stole 99 packets of cigarettes. Entry was gained by breaking the security grills. There was a partial recovery of the stolen property.

[3] Initially they have pleaded not guilty to the charges and were remanded in custody pending trial. After two judges in carriage of the case left the bench without hearing the matter, the case was brought to my listing. Both Accused changed theea pleas to guilty. Both have spent about 2 years and 2 months in custody awaiting trial.

[4] Both offences form part of the same transaction. Burglary e precursor to theft. The statutory aggravation of burglaryglary is that the offence was committed in the company of another. The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is 17 years imprisonment. The tariff range from 18 months imprisonment to 3 years imprisonment (Leqavuni v State [2016] FJCA 31; AAU0106.2014 (26 February 2016) Kumar v State [2018] FJCA 148; AAU165.2017 (4 October 2018)).

[5] The first Accused is 20 years of age. But when he commithe offenoffences he was a juvenile – 17 years of age. Theniles Act prohibits uses use of the terms “conviction” and “sentence&#822 relation to juveniles (s 20). The Act also provides for a or a range of methods to deal with juvenile offenders (s 32), including restrictions on use of imprisonment (ss 30 and 31). In State v NT [2003] FJHC 339; HA001.2003S (31 July 2003) the Court said that a juvenile has better prospects of rehabilitation than an adult and long terms of imprisonment should therefore avoided. The maximum detention that can be imposed on a juvenile for burglary and theft is 2 years. (s 30 (3))

[6] Both Accused have pleaded guilty although late. Both are first time offenders.

[7] Since the first Accused had already spent 2 years in custody I commute that as his aggregate punishment of 2 years detention. He does noe to serve any fany further time in this case.

[8] The second Accused is convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 years imprisonment. His d period of 2 years is commuted as sentence already served.rved.

[9] Recovered stolen property is restored to the owner.

. ...........................................
Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Legal Aid for both Accused