IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT SUVA

(Under Extended Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No: 414 of 2011

STATE

v.

NAYASI RAMAKITA

For Prosecution: Ms. Daru R. (DPP Office)
Accused: Present, In Person

SENTENCE

1.	You, NAYASI RAMAKITA are here, today to be sentenced on admission of guilt on your own free will for one count of "Aggravated Robbery", an offence punishable under sec. 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

2.	This case was sent back from High Court extending the Jurisdiction of this Court to hear the case. On the first available opportunity, you plead guilty to the charge. 

3.	According to the summary of facts (which you have admitted), on 08th January 2011, you with another got into a taxi and asked the taxi driver to drive ahead. When taxi driver went forward, one of you have asked him to stop the taxi. One accused went outside the taxi and used force on the taxi driver and the other tried to remove the taxi meter. According to the summary, accused who used the force on the taxi driver had stole $80 from the driver. 

4.	Maximum sentence prescribed for the offence under Sec. 311 (1) (a) is "20 years imprisonment". 

Seriousness of the offence and aggravating factors

5.	According to Justice Goundar in The State v. Sakiusa Rokonabete and three others (Criminal Case No. HAC 118 of 2007 Suva, 15th September 2008), aggravating factors, such as, Group offending, planned acts, vulnerable victim, value of the items taken and using of weapons, would invariably invite for a higher starting point in sentencing. In The State v. Timoci Delana [HAC 190 of 2008, 108, 113 and 126 of 2009 on 01st February 2010], Justice Goundar emphasised the above-mentioned facts as aggravating factors. 

6.	According to the Court of Appeal Judgment by Sheppard JA, Gallen JA and Ellis JA in Singh v. State {[2004] FJCA 8; AAU0008.2000S (19th March 2004)}, "'robbery with violence' either actual or threatened will always give rise to serious consequences".

Following factors have considered as guidelines in sentencing.

i.	The extent of the loss arising from the criminal action.
ii.	Vulnerability of the victim and the effect of them and their lives.
iii.	Subsequent behaviour.
iv.	Previous criminal record of the offender.
v.	Remorse (remorse expressed afterwards how genuine cannot carry as much weight)

7.	According to Goundar J in State v. Vakararawa [2008] FJHC 114, "the dominant factor in assessing seriousness of any type of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened". 

8.	Considering the facts of the case and above-mentioned guideline judgments, I set my starting point of sentencing for 04 years imprisonment.

9.	You plead guilty to the charge. According to a very recent Judgment delivered by Justice Thurairaja in Josua Natakuru Nalatu v. The State [Crim. Appeal No. HAA 058 of 2010], on 09th December 2010:

"There is no hard and fast rule, that the early guilty plea should be given 1/3 discount. As I discussed in many other cases previously the deduction is completely in the hands of the trial judges. They may consider the facts of the case and all other circumstances and decide the period of deductions".

10.	You are a first offender. You plead guilty at the earliest opportunity you had in Court. To reflect your guilty plea I reduce one year from your sentence and to reflect your previous good character, I reduce another 06 months.

11.	Your involvement to this crime is not clear according to the summary of facts available to the Court. There is no evidence to show that you have stolen money from the complainant. There is no evidence to show, complainant received any injuries. There is no medical report filed to support the injuries. 

12.	Offence of Robbery combines the offences of assault and larceny. It is essential to prove that the person assaulted is also the person robbed and the person or persons committing the assault are the same as those committing the robbery. 

13.	According to the charge the value of the stolen amount is $80. Even though it is mentioned in the summary that you were in the taxi, there is no evidence to show that it was you who assaulted the complainant or stole the money. 

14.	I consider that there are no aggravating facts to enhance the sentence.

Mitigating facts

15.	According to the mitigation you are 24 years old and single. You are employed and earn 180 per week. You asked for forgiveness and said that you will not re-appear in any Court during your life again. You further said that you have learnt a good lesson about associating bad friends whilst you were in prison. You said that you are enrolled to attend a course at National Employment Centre.

16.	When I was hearing your mitigation, I felt that you are genuinely remorseful of your actions. Considering your submission in mitigation, I reduce 01 year from your sentence.

17.	Your sentence now stands for 18 months imprisonment. I am of the view that this court is empowered to suspend sentences which are 02 years and below. 

18.	There is no evidence available to show that it was you who assaulted the taxi driver and stole the money. Only evidence available indicate that you were present with the main culprit. Considering these facts and your previous good character, I proceed to suspend your 18 months sentence for 02 years.

19.	If you commit any other offence during the operational period of the suspended sentence and found guilty by a Court, you are liable to serve 18 months imprisoned. 

20.	28 days to appeal.

On this Tuesday the 12th day of April 2011 

Kaweendra Nanayakkara
Resident Magistrate