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

State v Raisokula [2016] FJMC 184; Criminal Case 707.2016 (28 September 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: - 707/2016

STATE

V

IOWANE RAISOKULA

For the Prosecution : WPC Fisher

For the Accused : Mr.Vuki (LAC)

Date of Sentence : 28^th of September 2016

SENTENCE

1. IOWANE RAISOKULA, you were initially charged with one count of Robbery, contrary to section 310(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree.
2. The Prosecution filed an amended charge yesterday reducing the charge to Theft which you pleaded guilty.
3. You also admitted on 28.04.2016 whilst the complainant was standing beside her vehicle which was parked along Thompson Street, Suva when suddenly picked her golden chain valued at $1,500.00 and ran away.
4. I am satisfied about your plea was voluntarily and unequivocal .Accordingly I convict you for this offence.
5. Maximum penalty for Theft is 10 years imprisonment.
6. The tariff was outlined in the case of Ratusili v State [2012] FJHC 1249; HAA011.2012 (1 August 2012) where his Lordship Justice Madigan said :

(i) for a first offence of simple theft the sentencing range should be between 2 and 9 months.

(ii) any subsequent offence should attract a penalty of at least 9 months.

(iii) Theft of large sums of money and thefts in breach of trust, whether first offence or not can attract sentences of up to three years.

(iv) regard should be had to the nature of the relationship between offender and victim.

(v) planned thefts will attract greater sentences than opportunistic thefts.

7. In Laisiasa Koroivuki v the State ( Criminal Appeal AAU 0018 of 2010) the Fiji Court of Appeal discussed the guiding principles for determining the starting point in sentencing and observed :

"In selecting a starting point, the court must have regard to an objective seriousness of the offence. No reference should be made to the mitigating and aggravating factors at this time. As a matter of good practice, the starting point should be picked from the lower or middle range of the tariff. After adjusting for the mitigating and aggravating factors, the final term should fall within the tariff. If the final term falls either below or higher than the tariff, then the sentencing court should provide reasons why the sentence is outside the range".

8. Considering the gravity of offending, I select 06 months as the starting point for this case.
9. There are no aggravating factors and mitigating factors as submitted by the counsel in mitigation submission are young offender (20 years old), first offender, remorseful of your behavior and seeks forgiveness.
10. For these mitigating factors I deduct 02 months to reach 04 months imprisonment.
11. For the amended charge you pleaded guilty without wasting time and hence entitle for 1/3 deduction. Now your final sentence is 02 months imprisonment.
12. Considering your young age and past good behavior I believe the main purpose of sentencing is to allow you a chance to rehabilitate [section 4(1) (d) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree].
13. IOWANE RAISOKULA, I sentence you to 02 months imprisonment for the offence of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree and suspend this for 03 years.
14. If you commit any offences during next 03 years you can be charge under section 28 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
15. Since there is no recovery of the chain according to the prosecution, you have to pay the compensation in the sum of $1500.00 to the complainant.
16. 28 days to appeal.

RM Shageeth Somaratne