IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA,FIJI,

MAGISTRATES COURT CRIMINAL CASE HAC NO; 165/2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE
PROSECUTION

AND:

JONE LAUKOKO,
JACKSON KAISAU,
ENERIKO SULUNICEVUGA
ACCUSED PERSONS,

BEFORE: Resident Magistrate Mr. Thushara Rajasinghe, 

COUNSEL: Ms. Prasad V for the Prosecution,
All three Accused Persons in person,

Date of Sentence: 6th day of July 2012.

SENTENCE

1.	You JONE LAUKOKO, JACKSON KAISAU, and ENERIKO SULUNICEVUGA were charged for one count of 'Aggravated Robbery', which is punishable under Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009, entails a punishment up to 20 years of imprisonment period and one count of "Damaging Property" which is punishable under section 369 (1) of the Crime Decree No 44 of 2009, which entails a punishment up to two years.

2.	The summery of facts which was admitted by three of you revealed that you have committed this crime at Wairua roundabout, Tamavua on the 9th day of May 2012 at about 6.30 p.m. Three of you got into the taxi driven by Mr. Virendra Prasad at Santaram Supermarket and asked him to drop you off at Wairua road, Tamavua. Upon arrival to the Wairua roundabout, you asked the Victim to stop the taxi and tried to go without paying his taxi fare. When the Victim asked for his taxi fare, the first accused person started to verbally abuse the Vitim. The first accused then approached the victim and started to assault him. Then he called his other two accomplices and they all together assaulted the victim and robbed one Nokia mobile phone valued at $89 and cash of $70. In that process three of you damaged the right hand side car door with door glass, right car fender, radio console box of the taxi driven by the victim. 

3.	This is an act of robbing from a public transport provider. The crimes in this nature are becoming a serious problem to the proper function of the social order and warranted a greater judicial intervention in sentencing. Three of you got into the taxi of the victim and then took him to the destination you wanted and robbed him when he asked for his legally entitle fare for the service he provided for you. All of you carried out this crime in most disgraceful manner without any remorse which must be denounce without any reservation. All of you mercilessly assaulted the victim when he is in a position that he cannot seek any help or protect himself and damaged his taxi. Justice Gounder succinctly discussed the impact of robberies on public transport providers in State vs Mataiasi Bulivou Susu [2010] FJHC 226; HAC054.2010; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010) where, the lordship held "The victims were vulnerable by virtue of their employments. They are always exposed to risk of harm because they provide services to the public and they are in possession of cash earnings. For these reasons, an attack on the public transport providers and employees of service stations must not be condoned. Such attacks must be denounced. Otherwise, the public will be deprived of essential services if the providers cease to operate these services because of fear of becoming victims of crime". 

4.	This dreadful experience and the trauma that the victim has gone through during this incident undoubtedly will hunt him in rest of his life. The negative impact of this crime does not only affect the victim himself, but also it will definitely affect the entire industry of public transport services. 

5.	At this point I direct myself to consider appropriate sentences on you upon considering the general principles of sentencing under Section 15 (3of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and objectives of sentencing under section 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree. 

6.	The offences involving violence robberies are prevalent in the society and it's have made the entire country into an insecure and vulnerable place. The purpose of sentencing you for these offences in pursuant of section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree to punish offenders to an extent and in a manner which is just in all the circumstance, to protect the community from offenders in this nature, to deter offenders or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar nature, more importantly to signify that the court and the community denounce the commission of such offences

7.	Justice Goundar in State vs Mataiasi Bulivou Susu [2010] FJHC 226; HAC054.2010; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010) found that organized gang robberies attract the sentence of 8-14 year imprisonment. Justice Shameem in Seseu v State 2003, FJHC 224, HAM0043J, 2003S, 10 December 2003) found that the tariff for robbery with violence is 4-7 years. Justice Shameem  in Sakiusa Basa vs. the State (Criminal Appeal AAU 24/2005), held that "'Sentences for robberies involving firearms should range from six to eight years. A lower range of four to seven years is appropriate where firearms are not used and the premises are banks, or shops, post offices or service stations. However, the sentence may be higher where the victim or victims are particularly vulnerable due to age, infirmity, disability or where children are involved. Similarly where injuries are caused in the course of the robbery, a higher sentence will be justified. The value of the property stolen, evidence of planning or premeditation, multiple offences and previous convictions for similar offences should be considered aggravating features. The sentence may be reduced where the offender has no previous convictions, has pleaded guilty and has expressed remorse. This list of aggravating and mitigating features is by no means exhaustive. Furthermore, the sentence will always be adjusted up or down, depending on the facts of the particular case'

8.	Justice Goundar in Susu's case (supra), has summarized the guiding principles in sentencing in cases involving robbery. They are:' From these authorities, the following principles emerge. The dominant factor in assessing seriousness for any types of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened. The degree of injury to the victim or the nature of and duration of threats are also relevant in assessing the seriousness of an offence of robbery with violence. If a weapon is involved in the use or threat of force that will always be an important aggravating feature. Group offending will aggravate an offence because the level of intimidation and fear caused to the victim will be greater. It may also indicate planning and gang activity. Being the ringleader in a group is an aggravating factor. If the victims are vulnerable, such as elderly people and persons providing public transport, then that will be an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors may include the value of items taken and the fact that an offence was committed whilst the offender was on bail.

The seriousness of an offence of robbery is mitigated by factors such as a timely guilty plea, clear evidence of remorse, ready co-operation with the police, response to previous sentences, personal circumstances of the offender, first offence of violence, voluntary return of property taken, playing a minor part, and lack of planning involved.

9.	His Lordship Justice Madigan in State v Rasaqio [2010] FJHC 287; HAC 155/2007, observed that the normal range of sentence for robbery with violence is now 10 to 16 years in the High Court

10.	There is no set of tariff for the offense of Damaging Property (Gounder J in Tikomainiusiladi v State [2008] FJHC 18; HAA 134.2007 (15 February 2008). In Navitalai v The State, (Criminal Appeal No HAA0084 & 85 of 2002 S), a sentence of 2 years imprisonment for the criminal damage of a door valued at $ 250.00 was reduced to 6 months imprisonment on appeal. Furthermore in State v Naqa, (Criminal Appeal No. HAA0023 of 2003 S), Shameem J upheld a term of 12 months imprisonment for the criminal damage of Monasavu Dam to a value of $ 10,000.00.

11.	In view of above judicial precedents and provisions of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree, I now draw my attention to determine an appropriate starting point for you. This is a gang robbery on the public transport service provider while he was performing his trade in night. In line with above sentencing guidelines and principles, I select 6 years imprisonment period as a starting point for both counts pursuant to section 17 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree in respect of each accused person.

12.	Each of you committed this offence in a join enterprise. By virtue of the principle of join enterprise each one of your culpability and degree of responsibility for inflicting of violence and robbing the victim same as of your accomplices. 

13.	All of you demonstrated that you have no respect and regard for other's rights and freedom. You completely disregarded the laws and order and utilize the vulnerability and insecurity of the victims to carry out this criminal act.

14.	I now draw my attention to address the mitigating factors in your favors. 

Mr. Jone Laukoko

i.	25 years of age,

ii.	Married with one child,

iii.	Asked for forgiveness, 

iv.	Pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, 

v.	First offender, 

Mr. Jacson Kaisau,

i.	21 years old, 

ii.	Asked for forgiveness, 

iii.	Pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, 

iv.	First offender, 

Mr. Eneriko Sulunicevuga,

i.	19 years of age,

ii.	Asked for forgiveness, 

iii.	Pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, 

iv.	First offender, 

15.	In view of aforementioned aggravating factors I increase 6 years to reach the period of 12 years. I reduce 4 years for your early plea of guilty and 6 years for your mitigating factors with special emphasis on your previous good behaviors and also the young age of you. Further I reduce two months for the time you spent in remand custody prior to this sentencing pursuant to section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree. Now your sentence reaches to 20 months imprisonment period for each of you. According to section 26 (2) (b) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree, sentence which is below two years could not be suspended by this court. 

16.	The offence that all of you have committed is serious in nature and demands a deterrence sentencing approach in order to prevent the escalation of crimes of this nature and to denounce the morality of such acts. I consider the fact that three of you are first offender but that does not guarantee you a suspended sentence as of a right. Having considered all the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, I do not find any compelling reason for me to suspend your sentence. 

17.	Accordingly, 

Mr. JONE LAUKOKO, I sentence you for 20 months imprisonment period for the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery', which is punishable under Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009 and for the offence of Damaging Property contrary to section 369 (1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009. Further pursuant to section 18 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree you are not eligible for parole for a period of 14 months.

Mr. JACKSON KAISAU, I sentence you for 20 months imprisonment period for the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery', which is punishable under Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009 and for the offence of Damaging Property contrary to section 369 (1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009. Further pursuant to section 18 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree you are not eligible for parole for a period of 14 months.

Mr. ENERIKO SULUNICEVUGA, I sentence you for 20 months imprisonment period for the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery', which is punishable under Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009 and for the offence of Damaging Property contrary to section 369 (1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009. Further pursuant to section 18 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree you are not eligible for parole for a period of 14 months.

18.	Since this court is exercising the extended jurisdiction of the High Court in your case, you may appeal against this sentence within 30 days with leave to the Court of Appeal. 

On this 6th day of July 2012.

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