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

State v Bogitini [2011] FJMC 126; HAC30.2011 (13 October 2011)

IN THE JUVENILE MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF SUVA

Juvenile Case No: - HAC 30/2011

STATE

V

SAMUELA BOGITINI

For Prosecution : - Ms. Drau R,
Accused : - Mr. Inia,.

SENTENCE

1. You SAMUELA BOGITINI, were charged with the offence of "Aggravated Burglary" contrary to section 313 (1) (a) of the Crime Decree No 44 of 2009 which entails a punishment up to 17 years imprisonment and for the offence of "theft" contrary to section 291 ( 1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009 which entails punishment up to ten years imprisonment.
   
2. You pleaded guilty for these two counts with the assistance of learned counsel from Legal Aid as your duty solicitor, Social Welfare officer and with your mother on 31st of March 2011. I am satisfied that you fully comprehended the legal effects and that your plea was voluntary and free from influence.
   
3. Though your plea was entered and found guilty for the said offence on 31st day of March 2011, your punishment was delayed up to date because the court monitored your reform process with the assistance of the Social Welfare officer.
   
4. It is revealed in the Summary of facts, as admitted by you before the court, that you have committed these two offences together with another accomplice at Lami on 3rd August 2010. Both of you broke into the house of the complainant while he was away and stole the items listed in the particulars of the offence therein.
   
5. This is an act of home invasion in the night while the owners are away. The crime that you have committed is a serious and prevalent in the society. At the time of this alleged crime, you were juveniles.
   
6. Having considered the summery of facts and the aggravating factors, I now direct myself to consider appropriate punishment on you upon considering the general principle of sentencing under Section 15 (3) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and objective of sentencing under section 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and the sections 20, 30 and 32 of the Juvenile act.
   
7. The tariff for the offence of Burglary between 18 months to 3 years (Tomasi Turuturuvesi v The State [2002] HAA 086 of 2002; Mesake Ratabua v The State [2004] HAA 026 of 2004 and Charlton Lanyon v The State [2004] HAA 042 of 2005.)
   
8. Tariff for simple larceny is 6 months to 12 months imprisonment. ( Kaloumaira v State ( 2008) FJHC 63), (Manasa Lesuma v State 2004, FJHC 490). It was held in Tikoitoga v State (2008, FJHC 44, HAM088.2007, 18th March 2008), that the tariff for larceny is 18 months to 3 years. Shameem J held in Vaniqi v State (2008, FJHC 348,HAA080.2008) that tariff for simple larceny with previous conviction of a felony to be over 9 months.
   
9. The learned counsel of the Legal Aid who appeared for you as a duty solicitor, tendered very comprehensive mitigation submission on your behalf. The learned counsel upon outlining reasons for the offending and your personal back ground in his submission pleaded with the court for non custodial sentence for you.
   
10. The Social welfare officer submitted a comprehensive social back ground report of you. The Social welfare officer specifically brought into my attention that you are not posing any threat to the society and remorseful for your act. Further he submitted that your family, specially the parents are willingly ready to assist you in your reformation. I am satisfied the commitments shown by your parent for your reform and expect that they will continuously provide you the necessary guidance and assistance.
    
11. In view of above judicial precedents and provisions of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and the Juvenile Act and careful perusal of the summery of facts, mitigation submission, the social back ground report of you sufficiently directed me to determine an appropriate punishment for you under section 32 of the juvenile Act.
    
12. The impact of the offence on the victims must be a disappointing and frustrating experience.
    
13. I now draw my attention to address the mitigating factors in both of your favors.
    
    1. You are under the age of 18 at the time of committing this offence,
       
    2. Express remorsefulness and promise not to reoffended,
       
    3. Seek another chance,
       
    4. Early plea,
       
    5. The progress you have shown in reforming according to the social back ground report,
       
14. I reiterated the finding in the social back ground report of you submitted by the Social Welfare officer. It clearly indicated that you are in a process of reform and rehabilitation with the assistance of your family. The interest and commitment shown by your parent in this case is a progressive indication that they are ready to accept more responsibility in your rehabilitation now.
    
15. In view of the judicial responsibility of this court as a paramount guardian of the juvenile to consider the best interest of juvenile in punishment for the offence that he was found guilty, I order the father of the juvenile to enter in to a security for sum of $ 1000 for good behavior of the juvenile for a period of two years in pursuant of section 32 (1) (d) of the Juvenile Act. Moreover, I direct the Social Welfare officer to provide necessary counseling assistance to the juvenile during the period of two years.
    
16. 28 days to appeal.
    

On this 13th day of October 2011.

R.D.R.Thushara Rajasinghe
Resident Magistrate, Suva.