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

State v Rokovi [2016] FJMC 29; Criminal Case 223.2016 (9 March 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: - 223/2016

STATE

V

MAOPA ROKOVI

For the Prosecution :Sgt.Lenaitasi
For the Accused : Ms.Mishra(LAC)

Date of Sentence : 09th of March 2016

SENTENCE

1. MAOPA ROKOVI, you were charged with one count of Robbery contrary to section 310(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009. You elected this Court and pleaded guilty yesterday.
   
2. You also admitted the following summary of facts :
   
   • On the 5th day of December 2015 at about 3.50pm at Torokina Place one MOAPE ROKOVI [Accused] 21 years unemployed of Torokina Place, Nabua (stole) cash $100.00, the property of TITUS RAHMAN [PW-1] 57 years Taxi Driver of 129 Princess Road and immediately before stealing she used force on the said [PW-1].
     
   • [PW-1] was driving his taxi when he went to drop a passenger at the mentioned address.
     
   • After dropping the passenger [PW-1] was returning when he stopped by an Itaukei male who was asking [PW-1] if he can drop him when suddenly the [Accused] came and grabbed [PW-1] shirt pocket which contained the cash.
     
   • The [Accused] than ran away through the shortcut.
     
   • LAISA BALE [PW-2] 13 years student of 40 Torokina Place was sitting outside her house when she witnessed the incident when the [Accused] was robbing [PW-1].
     
   • The matter was reported at Nabua Police Station.
     
   • Investigations were carried out and the [Accused] was located and arrested.
     
   • The [Accused] was interviewed under caution whereby she whereby he admitted to the allegation put to her [Please refer to Q22 – 61]
     
   • The [Accused] was subsequently charged for one count of Robbery: Contrary to Section 310 (1)(a)(i) of the Crimes Decree Number 44 of 2009.
     
3. I am satisfied that your plea was made on your free will and convict you for this charge.
   

The Law and Tariff

4. Under the Crimes Decree the maximum penalty for Robbery is 14 years imprisonment.
5. In Rarawa v State [2015] FJHC 324 introducing new tariff for this offence his Lordship Justice Madigan said :

"To facilitate sentencing for robbery simpliciter, it would be appropriate to apply two tariffs one for robberies accompanied by violent force should be in the range of 8 to 14 years (in recognition of the lower maximum penalty applied to robbery by the legislature as opposed to the penalty for ggravated robbery). The general tariff for robbery, not accompanied by violence, can then be visited with sentences in the range of two to seven years."

6. Facts show that the accused came and grabbed the shirt of the complainant and ran away with the money. Accordingly I select 03 years as the starting point for this sentence.
Aggravating Factors
7. The victim is a public service transport provider and for that I add 06 months to reach 42 months imprisonment.
Mitigating Factors
8. The learned defence counsel submitted following mitigating factors:
a. Young offender;
b. First offender;
c. Seeking forgiveness and remorseful.
9. For these mitigating factors I deduct 01 year to reach 30 months imprisonment.
Guilty Plea
10. In UK Sentencing Guidelines of 2007 for the earliest plea of guilty 1/3 is recommended and this has been followed in Fiji also.
11. Therefore I deduct 1/3 to reach 20 months imprisonment which is within this Court power to suspend.

12. In State v Patrick Fong [FJHC 722/05] his Lordship Justice Gates (as he then was ) said

'Much has been said of attacks on taxi&#16ivers . The court hurt has concluded that the need forh dett sentences to protect taxi dri and ran transport faci facility they phey providrovide for the public, far outweighs the pal mitigating circumstancesances of unthinking or alienated young men: Peni Raiwalui v The State (unreported) Suva Crim. App. No. HAA030.03S, 12 November 2003; Vilikesa Koroivuata v The State (unreported) Cr. App. HAA064.04S, 20 August 2004; State v Charles Marvick, (unreported) Suva Cr. Case No. HAC027.028.04S 19 October 2004.

13. Therefore the main purposes of this sentence are to denounce your behavior and protect the public service transport providers in this country from future offenders. To fulfill these objectives a custodial sentence is warranted in this case.

14. MAOPRE ROKOVI, you are sentenced to 20 months imprisonment for the offence of Robbery contrary to section 310(1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
    
15. 28 days to appeal
    

Shageeth Somaratne
Resident Magistrate