|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Magistrates Court of Fiji |
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
Criminal Case : 1271/2011
STATE
v
TIMOCI CINABILAKEBA
Counsel: Ms. Korodrau for the State
Ms.Malimali for the Accused
Date of Judgment: 26th January 2015
Date of Sentence: 03rd February 2015
SENTENCE
[1] TIMOCI CINABILAKELABA , you were convicted after a trial for one count of RECEIVING A BRIBE contrary to Section 135(1)(a)(ii) and (b)(i) of the Crimes Decree 2009.
[2] It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that you on 30th June 2011 whilst being a police officer accepted a sum of $450.00 from one Yogesh Lal as a bribe.
[3] Maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment. Both parties have filed sentencing and mitigation submission respectively and I have considered them also for my sentence.
[4] The learned counsel for the accused submitted following grounds as mitigating factors in this case and asked for a suspended sentence for rehabilitation.
[5] The State in their submission submitted a decision in State v Vikasah Nand where the learned magistrate took 02 years as starting point for Bribery of a Public Official. Apart from that both parties have failed to submit a suitable tariff for this offence in their submissions.
[6] As noted earlier the maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment. This is a newly introduced offence under the Crimes Decree. Similar offence under the old Penal Code was Official Corruption which carried 07 years imprisonment as the maximum penalty. In absence of any suitable tariff for this offence therefore I would review the cases for Official Corruption under the Penal Code to determine a appropriate starting point for your sentence.
[7] In State v Alifereti [2008] FJHC 231; HAC018.2005 & HAC040.2007s (17 September 2008) – the accused was sentenced to4years and 3 years imprisonment respectively.
[8] In State v Carlos Taylor High Court, Crim Case No: 001 of 1999, - the accused pleaded guilty to 4 counts of Official Corrupti60;, sb>, sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to 2 years on account of the guilty plea.
[9] In Prem Chand v The State [ FJHC 130; HAM 0017/2000, 8 November 2008, the appe appellant had pleaded guilty to one count of official corruption&andb>and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on that count.
[10] In State v Sorovakatini High Courim Case No: 018/07, 26 September 2007, the accused pleaded to one count of off0;officialuption and was sentence2 to 2 ½ years imprisonment after discounting the guilty plea.
[11] In Isireli Kini v The State i>] FJCA 55, AAU 0041/02, 26 November 2004,, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentencntence of 12 months imprisonment for one count of Official Corrupt/b>
[12] After considering the above mentioned cases his Lordship justice Thurairaja in State v Bhika [2011] FJHC 171; HAC116.2007 held that tariff for the Official Corruption is 12 months to 05 years. I adopt the same tariff for this offence.
[13] The accused was a part of the police team that was investigating the complainant and using that position he demanded the money and accepted that. Therefore he has breached the trust placed on him by committing this offence. Also he has abused the position as a police officer by indulging in this activity. These will be considered as the aggravating factors in this case.
[14] Even though the State conceded the fact that the accused returned the reminder of the money after spending a portion as a taxi fare and agreed that this is a mitigating factor I do not think I can agree with that. I find that this is not a genuine restitution. He was compelled to do this after knowing that the police observed him accepting a bribe and to shift the blame. But his past good behavior, married with two small children and service suspension I take in to consideration as mitigating factors.
[15] After considering the facts in this case I select 02 years as my starting point and add 02 years for aggravating factors to reach 04 years imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors I deduct 1 ½ year to reach 2 ½ years imprisonment.
[16] The offence of Accepting Bribery is serious. That is the reason the maximum sentence has been increased 10 years under the Crimes Decree from the earlier 07 years under the Penal Code. The Public interest demands that the sentence must address the need for deterrence and to warn others similarly inclined that severe sentence will be passed by the Court on any public official found guilty of the offences related to Bribery. The people involved in this kind of crime betray public trust and their acts erode public confidence in government institutions. Therefore it is needful that potential offenders and the public at large understand that offences elated to bribery will be met with a custodial sentence.
[17] Accordingly I sentenced you to 02 ½ years imprisonment for the offence of Accepting Bribe contrary to section 135(1)(a)(ii) and (b)(i) of the Crimes Decree 2009. Pursuant to section 18 of the sentencing and penalties Decree I also fix 2 years as a non- parole period.
[18] 28 days to appeal
H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2015/11.html