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

State v Ranuqanuqa [2012] FJMC 213; Criminal Case 1194.2012 (6 September 2012)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
IN THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
Criminal Case No: 1194/12

STATE

V

INIA RANUQANUQA

Prosecution : PC Pauliasi (Police Prosecution)
Accused : In person.

Sentence

Introduction

INIA RANUQANUQA, you are now being sentenced for Robbery, contrary to Section 310 (1)(b) (1) of Crimes Decree Number 44 of 2009. The Particulars of Offence is that you:

“INIA RANUQANUQA on the 4th day of September, 2012, at Suva in the Central Division, stole $120.00 cash, 1 x I Phone valued at $70.00 and 1 x Sony Ericson mobile phone valued at $100.00 all to the total value of $290.00, the property of VINIT VISHAL NAIDU and used force immediately after the robbery on VINIT VISHAL NAIDU.”

You elected that this Court deals with your case. You pleaded guilty on your own free will. You admitted the statement of facts and the previous conviction that were put to you.

The Maximum Penalty

The Maximum Penalty for Robbery under the Crimes Decree is 15 years imprisonment.

The Tariff

Justice Nawana in State v Tora [2011] FJHC 31; HAC153.2010 (31 January 2011) stated that in “State v Rasaqio [2010] FJHC 287; HAC 155/2007, His Lordship Madigan J. observed that the normal range of sentence for 'Robbery with Violence' is now 10 to 16 years in the High Court after relying on State v Basa: AU0024/04, Wainiqolo v State: AAU0027/06 and State v Rokonabete: HAC 118/07, and imposed a term of 15 year-imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years on an accused for 'Robbery with Violence', who was also found guilty of murder in the same transaction.
The above principle was adopted in State vs Nileshwar Singh (HAC 022 of 2010 and HAC 35/2010) and in Manasa Volau (HAC 85 of 2009) where the starting point for the term of imprisonment was set at 10 years for an offence of 'Robbery with Violence'.
Given the identical nature of the offences, I am inclined to adopt the above principles in regard to the matter of sentence for the newly created offence of ' Aggravated Ry' under the Crhe Crimes Decree. I would, accordingly, apply the range of 10-16 year imprisonment on the basis of the ruling in the case of State v Rasaqio (supra) for the offence of 'Aggravatbbery' punishable under Secr Section 311(1) (b) of the Decree.”
The Tariff for Robbery under Section 310 (1) (b) (1) has not been clearly established to-date. Under the Crimes Decree the maximum sentence is 15 years. The Penal Code for Robbery with Violence had maximum penalty as life imprisonment. With life imprisonment as the maximum for Robbery with Violence, the Courts set out a tariff (stated in above-mentioned cases) as between 10 to 16 years.
This Court notes that in Basa v The State, Criminal Appeal No. AAUU24 of 2005, the Court of Appeal observed that the earlier decisions in which New Zealand cases have been used as guidance in assessing appropriate penalties for robbery wiolence (such as Moananui anui [1983] NZCA 66; [1983] NZLR 537) were suggested to be reconsidered. The Fiji Court of Appeal suggested that under those decisions a "starting point" is suggested at 6 or more yeincreasing to 8 or more yeae years where there is a greater risk of violence or harm. The Court of Appeal also pointed out that the levels of sentences in robbery cases should be based on English authorities because the sentence provided in our Penal Code is close to that in the English Law.
With the maximum now for Robbery as 15 years, this Court will take the tariff as between 8 years. This Court is mins mindful that it has been suggested in numerous cases that the Courts assess the degree of force used or threat. The degree/nature of injury to the victim, and the duration of the threat on the victim. This Court is mindful that as there is a new offence of Aggravated Robbery, therefore Robbery needs to be distinguished with its own tariff.
Starting Point

In view of the above-mentioned observations and the relevant provisions of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree. This Court takes 4 years (lower end of the scale) as an appropriate starting point for the offence that you have committed and also the fact that you are not a 1st offender.

Aggravating factors

As force used (grabbing and robbing the victim) is an element of the offence it would not be taken as an aggravating factor. However for throwing the victim in the sea, the Court considers that as aggravating factor and increases your sentence by 1 year. Now your sentence is 5 years imprisonment.

Guilty Plea

For your guilty plea on the 1st available opportunity this Court will give you 20 months discount (1/3rd). You are now to serve 40 months (3 years 4 months) imprisonment.

Mitigation

Your mitigation is that you are 29 years old, married with 2 kids, a shoe shine boy, earning $100.00 per week, seek forgiveness, were drunk, willing to pay fine, seek suspended sentence and will not re-offend.

For your total mitigation you are given 1 year discount.

The Court notes that you are not 1st offender and gives no discount for that.

INIA RANUQANUQA your sentence is 2 years 4 months imprisonment.

The Court notes the seriousness and the nature of the offence you committed. You are not a 1st offender and for these reasons this Court will not suspend your sentence. The message is clear people need protection in our Country no matter where they are, be it in public or inside their homes. Court's cannot be expected to have sympathy for people like you who have no regards or respect for others, lives and property. You need to genuinely reform and rehabilitate yourself. From your behaviour in Court while taking plea and mitigating it seem that you take things very lightly and as if nothing much happened. You put at risk a person who did not know how to swim.

Non Parole Period

This Court fixes a non parole period of 1 year 8 months for you.

Right of Appeal

You have 28 days to appeal to the High Court.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate
6/09/2012