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

State v Raj [2010] FJMC 102; Criminal Case 598 of 2009 (4 January 2010)

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT IN LAUTOKA

Criminal Case No. 598/09

THE STATE

V

VINESH KUMAR RAJ

SENTENCE

1. You Vinesh kumar Raj, are to be sentenced upon pleading guilty to the charge of Larceny by trick contrary to section 259(1), (2)(a)(1) read with section 262 of the Penal Code Cap 17.
   
2. You have on the 10th of November 2009 at Lautoka stolen by trick 1 coral brand Mobile phone valued $80, the property of Rahul Racheed.
   
3. When there are previous convictions the maximum sentence prescribed for this offence according to section 262(2) is ten years imprisonment.
   
4. However in this case I pick my starting point as 12 months.
   
5. Prosecution informed court that the accused has 38 previous convictions. You have admitted all 38 previous convictions. Out of those previous convictions, more than ten are convictions for similar offences. It appears that since year 2000 you have been convicted for offences in every year by magistrate's courts in Nadi, Sigatoka, Suva and Lautoka.
   
6. As per Winter j in Viliame Cavuilagi –v- State [2004] HAA031/04 Judgment of 14 April, 2004; "Repetitive, recidivist offending must inevitably lead to longer sentences of imprisonment unless the offender can demonstrate special circumstances that motivate the court to sentence otherwise. This principle meets three of society's needs. Firstly it might act as a deterrent to the offender and others who fall into a pattern of semi-professional crime to support themselves. Second society is entitled to sideline or warehouse repeat offenders out of the community for longer periods of time so that at least during the term of incarceration they cannot wreck havoc on the lives of law abiding citizens. Thirdly offenders deserve punishment that fits the circumstances of the crime."
   
7. Thus considering the aggravating circumstances of this case and for the necessity to impose a deterrent punishment to prevent repetition of offences I decide to increase the sentence by 6 months.
   
8. However in this case you have pleaded guilty at the very first instance. That has to be considered by the court in imposing sentence on you. But you said you do not have any thing to say in mitigation. The court did not observe that you are remorseful of your acts. Any way considering the fact that you have pleaded guilty at the very first instance, saving the time of this court I decide to reduce your sentence by three months.
   
9. Thus I impose a 15 months imprisonment for the charge against you.
   

28 days to appeal.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate,

Lautoka
04.01.2010.