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

State v Lalagavesi [2010] FJMC 46; Criminal Case 60 of 2010 (5 May 2010)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Criminal Case No 60/10

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

SAULA LALAGAVESI

SENTENCE

1. You Saula Lalagavesi are to be sentenced upon being found guilty to the charges of assaulting a Police Officer in the due execution of his duty contrary to Section 247(b) of the Penal Code and Escaping from lawful custody contrary to section 138 of the Penal Code.
   
2. The maximum punishment for Assaulting a Police Officer in due execution of his duty is imprisonment for five years.
   
3. The maximum punishment for Escaping from lawful custody is imprisonment for two years or a fine or both.
   
4. In this case for the first offence I pick my starting point as 12 months. For the second offence I pick my starting point as 3 months.
   
5. You have escaped from custody when you were remanded by the High Court for some other matter. When you were kept under the custody of the High Court orderly until you are taken to remand prison you have assaulted the orderly and escaped.
   
6. Escaping from custody has become a very prevalent offence now and acts of this nature invariably hinder the administration of justice system. The state has to spend time and money unnecessarily on re arresting escaped accused persons. The court can not allow persons to engage in this type of high handed acts which bring the criminal justice system to a mockery.
   
7. The court has a duty to impose deterrent sentences in this kind of cases to prevent any hindrance to the criminal justice system.
   
8. It was informed that you have 40 previous convictions. But you admitted only 36 of previous convictions. However I decide to disregard the 4 previous convictions that you did not admit.
   
9. It appears you have not tried to correct yourself and to stay away from troubles however much previous convictions you have.
   
10. For the aggravating circumstances of this case I enhance the sentence for the first offence by six months and for the second offence by three months.
    
11. In mitigation you said that you are working and you could not go for work as you have been in remand for sometime. Further you said that you are the sole breadwinner of the family. You also said that you may be imposed a lenient sentence as you were tempted to commit this offence. You said you didn't want to run away but the officer told you to go.
    
12. It should be noted that even if the court believes that you were told by an officer to escape, you should not have done that being a person who has 36 previous convictions and being a person who is familiar with consequences of acts of this nature.
    
13. However for the mitigatory circumstances I reduce the sentence for the first offence by three months and I reduce the sentence by one month for the second offence.
    
14. It should be stated that he circumstances of this case do not warrant this court to impose a non custodial sentence.
    
15. Thus I impose a fifteen months imprisonment for the first count and a five months imprisonment for the second count.
    
16. The sentences should run concurrently and you are eligible for parole after fourteen months.
    

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate

Lautoka.
05.05.2010