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

State v Madigi [2010] FJMC 108; Criminal Case 156 of 2010 (1 April 2010)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Criminal Case No 156 / 10

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

SEMESA MADIGI

SENTENCE

1. You, Semesa madigi are to be sentenced upon pleading guilty to twelve counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 317(1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
   
2. The maximum punishment for this offence is ten years imprisonment according to Section 317(1) of the Crimes Decree.
   
3. In this case I pick my starting point as 18 months for each count.
   
4. It was revealed that while you are employed as a trainee customer service officer at a Television broadcasting Company you have misused your office to deceive customers and have obtained 2580 dollars.
   
5. You have misled the customers by saying that you can give a television package at a discounted price. You have deceived twelve customers and have started collecting money from them since 27th February 2010 to 18th March 2010 in twelve occasions. It was revealed when the customers inquired about the delay in installing the equipments you have further misled them by giving various false reasons.
   
6. You have started your career with the complainant company on the 22nd February 2010 and just within five days you have started obtaining money by deception. You have said that you spent this money for liquor, food and snacks for your friends.
   
7. It appears that you have committed a series of offences without giving any regard to the trust reposed on you by your employer and trust that the customers kept on you. Apart from tarnishing the reputation of your employer you have continuously misled members of the society until they complained against you. The crime you committed is not a single and isolated incident. It seems you have continued to deceive members of the public without giving any thought about their hard earned money.
   
8. The court has to seriously deal with cases where persons breach the trust and misuse their office to make undue advantageous. Also the court has to pay serious attention to cases where the members of the public are deprived of their property by deception.
   
9. The court has a duty to prevent crimes of this nature. This is a case where the court has to give a strong deterrent message to the members of the society to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents.
   
10. For the aggravating circumstances in this case I enhance the sentence by six months for each count.
    
11. The prosecution informed court that you are a first offender and that you are 27 years old.
    
12. In mitigation you said that you seek forgiveness as you pleaded guilty without wasting time. Further you said that you are willing to pay back the money and for that you need time. Apart from that you did not say any thing further in mitigation.
    
13. It does not seem that you are remorseful of your actions. Besides one should not think that the culpability of committing an offence can be done away with, just by paying back the money stolen. Restitution can be considered as a mitigatory factor yet you should not think that every thing is cleared once you pay back the money.
    
14. However having considered the fact that you are a first offender, your young age, the early plea of guilt and the fact that you are willing for restitution I decide to reduce your sentence by 3 months in each count.
    
15. Yet I do not see any reason as to why this court should impose a non custodial sentence on you. Thus I impose a 21 months imprisonment for each count from count number one to count number twelve. However I order that all sentences should run concurrently.
    
16. You are eligible for parole after twelve months.
    
17. Further as restitution I order you to pay the twelve complainants, the money you have obtained from each of them to the total value of 2580 dollars within 90 days.
    

28 days to appeal.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate

Lautoka.
01.04.2010.