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

State v Seru - Sentence [2014] FJMC 74; Criminal Case 1816.2012 (7 May 2014)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
IN THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 1816/12

State

V

Netani Seru

Prosecution: Cpl Vili, Police Prosecutor.
Accused: In person.

SENTENCE

1. Netani Seru you are today being sentenced for the following charges:
   

First Count

Statement of offence (a)

DESTROYING EVIDENCE: Contrary to Section 189(a) of the Crimes Decree Number 44 of 2009.

Particulars of offence (b)

NETANI SERU, on the 20th day of June, 2011 at Nabua in the Central Division knowingly that documents may be required in a judicial proceeding wilfully removed it with the intent to prevent it from being used as evidence.

Second Count

Statement of offence (a)

RECEIVING A CORRUPTING BENEFIT: Contrary to Section 137(1) (a)(ii) of the Crimes Decree Number: 44 of 2009.

Particulars of offence (b)

NETANI SERU, between the 18th day of June on the 20th day of June, 2011 at Nabua in the Central Division without lawful authority or reasonable excuse received $450.00 cash, a benefit for himself in the exercise of his official duties as a public official.

2. You have chosen to represent yourself. You have pleaded guilty to both the counts on your own free will. When the facts were read out and put to you, you have admitted the facts. This Court notes you are a first offender.
   
3. Your mitigation was as follows: 35 years old, married with one child, not employed, seek forgiveness from Police Force, Court and government, seek leniency, realise the wrong done and learnt lesson from time in remand.
   
4. The maximum for the two counts are as follows:
   
   • (a) Count One – Destroying evidence is 1 year imprisonment.
   • (b) Count Two – Receiving a corrupt benefit is 5 years imprisonment.
     
5. The Tariff for each count is as follows:
   

(a) Count One – This Court has not found any set tariff for this offence but considering that maximum is 1 year; Court takes that the Tariff would be between 3 months to 6 months.
(b) Count Two – In Deo v State [2011] FJHC 372; HAA010.2011 (6 July 2011) – In a similar case involving a Police Officer, Justice Thuriraja stated that considering the maximum sentence is that of 5 years a Tariff commencing at 30 months is within range.

6. For Count One this Court takes a starting point of 5 months (20 weeks). For guilty plea this court gives 6 weeks discount. For the mitigation and time spent in custody this court gives further discount of 6 weeks. For count one the accused is sentenced to 8 weeks (2 months) imprisonment.
   

For Count Two this Court takes 30 months as starting point. For the guilty plea this court gives 10 months discount. This Court gives further 5 months discount for mitigation and time spent in custody. For count two your sentence is 15 months imprisonment.

7. This court has considered whether to suspend you sentence or not. You were a police officer; you were entrusted with evidence collected by your fellow police officers. You were supposed to guard and protect it. You chose to do otherwise. You have destroyed evidence which would have been used against someone in Court. You also accepted money to destroy the evidence. The message to other Police Officers is simple that you act likewise you will not be dealt with leniently. For the forgoing reasons your sentence will not be suspended. However each count will be concurrent to each other.
   
8. In summary your sentence is as follows:
   
   • (a) Count One – 8 weeks Imprisonment (2 months)
   • (b) Count Two - 15 months imprisonment, Concurrent to Count One.
     

You have 28 days to appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate

7th May 2014