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

State v Vuiloqa [2013] FJMC 371; Criminal Case 254.2012 (9 October 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF FIJI
AT RAKIRAKI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 254/12

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

MENEUSI VUILOQA

Prosecution: Cpl Chin Samy
Accused: Ms Tarai (Legal Aid Office)

SENTENCE

1. Meneusi Vuiloqa you pleaded guilty to theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
   
2. You pleaded guilty voluntarily to the charge when it was read and explained. You also accepted the facts tendered by prosecution.
   
3. The Court was satisfied with your guilty pleas as being unequivocal and convicted you as charged.
   
4. Between 1/7/12 and 26/9/12 you borrowed a horse from one Peni Rokobaleni 17yrs, a labourer from Waimari Ra, to use. The horse worth $250.00 belonged to the complainant Ravin Lal 26yrs farmer of Waimari Ra. You took the horse and sold it for $100.00 to one Sakiusa Rokodi, 29yrs cane cutter of Lutu Wainibuka after informing him that the horse was yours. Peni after receiving information that the horse was sold reported the matter to police.

You were arrested, cautioned interviewed and charged for the alleged offence.

5. I take into consideration mitigation by your counsel and the following considered in your favor:
   
   • You've are first offender.
   • Your guilty plea albeit not an early plea.
   • You've remorseful and requested for forgiveness.
   • You've also paid into court $250.00 as compensation to the owner of the horse.
     
6. The following factor I would regard as aggravating:
   
   • You deceived Peni who was in possession of complainant's horse, to think that you were going to use the horse to look for your cattle.
   • Breach of trust.
   • Benefit derived from the offence.
     
7. Theft under the Crimes Decree carries a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years.

The guideline in case authorities suggest that tariff for theft ranges from 2-9 months for 1st convictions and between 9 – 24 months for 2nd convictions depending on the value of the goods and circumstances of the stealing. (see: State v Saukilagi [2005] FJHC 13; Ronald Vikash Singh v State HAA 035 of 2002)

8. This Court has repeatedly reiterated that this type of offending cannot be regarded as simple theft. The courts have always viewed livestock and crop or farm theft as serious because of the public interest factor involved. Most farmers rely on livestock and crops to support their livelihood. Hence the court will not deal leniently with those engaging in livestock, crop or farm theft.
   
9. His Lordship Judge Goundar stated in the recent Labasa case of State v Filipe Ratusuka & 8 Others Criminal Appeal No. HAA001/2013, at paragraph 17 "Farm theft is considered a serious offence because of the value that the commodities bring to the farmer and the community. For this reason, theft of cattle, goats, livestock and root crops from farming community is usually punished by custodial sentences to deter the offenders and others from engaging in this type of conduct in the future (Sateo Tuta v State [2002] HAA 5/02B, Abdul Afiz v State [1990] HAA 0011 & 12/89S, Jone Naca v State HAA016/-02S, Penisoni Waqa v State [2004] HAA 101/04L)."
   
10. In considering the circumstances of the offending in this case I take a starting point of 18 months.
    
11. For the aggravating factors I increase your sentence by 1 month. Your sentence is now 19 months imprisonment.
    
12. For other mitigating circumstances including this being your first offence I reduce your sentence by 4 months. For your guilty plea I further deduct your sentence by 5 months. Your final sentence is now 10 months imprisonment each.
    
13. I now consider whether to suspend your sentence. There is no question that you've a first offender. However the offence is prevalent in community and as noted in similar previous cases there are a lot of crop and livestock farmers who reside within the jurisdiction or locality of this Court. For that reason a deterrent sentence is imperative. The case authority noted above shows that the Courts usually regard theft of livestock as serious and a custodial sentence is warranted in the public interest. Further there are no exceptional circumstances to wholly suspend your sentence. In the opinion of the Court it would be appropriate that you serve part of your sentence in prison and part to be suspended for your rehabilitation.
    
14. I've also considered that you've paid $250.00 in Court as compensation for owner's loss. Your payment of the said sum was made at a late stage and is not an indication of real or genuine remorse on your part. Had you been sincerely remorseful you would have made the compensation payment prior to receiving advise from counsel on the issue. The late payment of the said sum is an indication that you've attempting to buy your way out of prison.
    
15. This sentence should send out a clear warning to others in community who may have similar impulses.
    
16. I order that you serve 3 months in prison, the remainder of 7 months to be suspended for 2 years.
    
17. If you commit any offence within the period of 2 years, you'll be charged for breaching the suspension order and if convicted, you'll be made to serve the 7 months or part of it with any other penalty imposed in that other offence.
    
18. The sentence imposed should serve as a short sharp shock and is not a day too long for your rehabilitation.
    
19. I further order that the $250.00 paid into Court be paid to the lawful owner of the horse forthwith.
    
20. 28 days to appeal.
    

Samuela Qica
Resident Magistrate

9th October 2013