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

State v Wilson - Sentence [2014] FJMC 105; Criminal Case 1174.2008 (16 June 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
Criminal Case : 1174/2008( EJ 109/2008)

STATE

VS

ALEXANDER WILSON

Sgt .Vinesh for the Prosecution
The accused absent

Date of Judgment : 16th June 2014
Date of Sentence : 16th June 2014

SENTENCE

1. The accused has been convicted after a trial for one count of Found in Possession of Illicit Drugs contrary to Section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act No. 9 of 2004.
   
2. The prosecution managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 26th June 2008at Lami the Accused had in his possession 359.5 grams of Indian Hemp.
   
3. Maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $1,000,000 or imprisonment for life or both.
   
4. in Sulua v State [2012] FJCA 33; AAU0093.2008 (31 May 2012) his Lordship Justice Temo set out tariff for this offence as follows:

"(i) Category 1: possession of 0 to 100 grams of cannabis sativa - a non-custodial sentence to be given, for example, fines, community service, counselling, discharge with a strong warning, etc. Only in the worst cases, should a suspended prison sentence or a short sharp prison sentence be considered.

(ii) Category 2: Possession of 100 to 1,000 gram of cannabis sativa. Tariff should be a sen&#160een 1 to 3 years ears ears imprisonment, with those possessing below 500 grams, being sentenced to less than 2 years, and those ssing more than 500 grams, be sentenced to more than 2 years imprisonment.

(iii) Category 3: possessing 1,000 to 4,000 grams of cannabis sativa. Tariff should be a sentence between 7 years, with thosethose possessing less than 2,500 grams, be sentenced to less than 4 years imprisonment, and those possessing more than 2,500 grams, be senteno morn 4 years.

(iv) Cate>Category gory 4: possessing 4,000 grams and above of cannabis sativa. Tariff should be a sentence bet7 to 14 years imprisonmesonment."

5. I find no aggravating factors in this case and since the accused is absconding I have no opportunity to consider the mitigating factors on his behalf. But the accused has no valid conviction which would entitle him some discount.

5. I select 02 years as my starting point and deduct 01 year for his past good behavior to reach 01 year imprisonment.
   
6. Considering the nature of the offence I do not see any compelling reason to suspend this sentence.
   
7. Therefore the accused is sentenced to 01 year imprisonment for the offence of Possession of Drugs contrary to section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act No. 9 of 2004.
   
8. As the accused is absconding this sentence will be activated from the date of his apprehension.
   
9. Since this court is exercising the extended jurisdiction of the High Court in this case, the parties may appeal against this sentence within 30 days with leave to the Court of Appeal.
   

H. S. P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate