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

State v Vuli [2013] FJMC 69; Criminal Action 1476.2012 (12 February 2013)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Action No: 1476/12

STATE

V

LEDUA VULI

Prosecution : Sgt. Jitendra, Police Prosecutor.
Accused : Mr. Fesaitu (of Legal Aid Commission)

SENTENCE

1. You Ledua Vuli is here today to be sentenced following the admission of guilt on your own accord and free will in this Court on 14.01.2013 for committing the offences of 'Obtaining Goods by Deception' and 'Dishonestly Causing a Loss' contrary to sections 317 and 324(1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
   

Facts

2. The synopsis of agreed facts states that the offences were committed between 08.05.2012 and 15.05.2012.
   
3. You deceived Tasneem Ali a 42 year old Programme Co-ordinator of Bay view Heights to obtain cloths and other items valued at $2191. It appears that you have taken these items on an agreement to sell and pay the amount back on a weekly basis. But you failed to fulfil the conditions and thereafter evade from meeting the complainant. The matter was then reported to the police and you were arrested. It was further revealed that you have sold the items and used the money for your own consumption. By doing so you committed the second offence.
   
4. You admitted the offences in the caution interview. The said summary was admitted by you and the court convicts you for each count as charged.
   

Tariff

5. The offence of 'Obtaining Goods by Deception' carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. In the case of State v Atil Sharma HAC 122 of 2010L Hon. Justice Madigan identified a tariff of 2 to 5 years for the cases of 'Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' which is identical to this offence. The court notes that there is no set tariff for the offence of 'Dishonestly Causing a Loss by Deception'. The maximum punishment for the offence is five years imprisonment.
   
6. The view of this court is that the offences cannot be considered as trivial due to the value of the items.
   
7. The Court therefore takes 2 years as the starting point for the each offence. There are no aggravating features of your offending.
   

Mitigation

8. Your early guilty plea to save Court's time and resources takes one third of your sentence off. I will now reduce 8 months for your timely plea. Therefore your sentence for each offence is now 1 year 4 months.
   
9. Submitted personal circumstances states that you are 25 years old; married; remorseful for the action; and first offender. Further you did not evade the legal process and the investigations but co-operated with them.
   
10. Further concession of 4 months given in order to reflect above personal circumstances.
    
11. That leaves your final sentence at 1 year for each count. Considering the fact that it committed during the same transaction the court orders to run the two sentences concurrently.
    
12. It is to be noted that the court has powers under the Sentencing and Penalties Decree 2009 to suspend any imprisonment term less than 2 years. You submitted that you are a first offender at an age of 25. The legal framework always encourages the court to consider imprisonment terms on an offender as the last resort.
    
13. On the other hand it is important to deter offenders who affect adversely on the other person's rights and financial status.
    
14. At this juncture it is important to note the option of imposing a suspended sentence on an accused person. A suspended sentence is also considered as a term of imprisonment. The difference is that the offender serves the sentence while attending to his day to day work. The offender is bound for not to commit any other offence during the operational period. Any subsequent find of guilt will result him or her to serve the sentence which was suspended by the Court. It can also be considered as a period of rehabilitation to a first offender, where the Court and the law enforcement authorities will have constant monitor on him.
    
15. Having considered your young age and other circumstances this Court concludes that a suspended sentence is most appropriate in the instance.
    
16. Accordingly Ledua Vuli your final sentence states as follows,
    

Count 1 - one year imprisonment,

Count 2 - one year imprisonment.

• The sentences concurrent to each other.
• And it is suspended for 3 years.
  

17. As stated early, any breach of the suspended sentence would be a ground for a separate prosecution against you.
    
18. Further the court orders you to pay $2191(two thousand one hundred and ninety one dollars) to Tasneem Ali as compensation within one month of this order. This order will have no effect on the complainant's right to file civil action against you. The prosecution must communicate this order to the complainant.
    
19. Twenty eight [28] days to appeal.
    

Pronounced in open Court,

Yohan Liyanage
Resident Magistrate

12th February 2013