You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
Magistrates Court of Fiji >>
2025 >>
[2025] FJMC 21
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Download original PDF
State v Senikuraciri - Sentence [2025] FJMC 21; Criminal Case 270 of 2023 SUV (12 June 2025)
IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
Criminal Case No: -270/2023
STATE
V
ELENOA BUA SENIKURACIRI
For the Prosecution : Cpl Bola
For the accused: Mr.S.Matanitobua
Date of Sentence: 12th of June 2025
SENTENCE
- ELENOA BUA SENIKURACIRI was charged with one count of theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Act.[1]
- The accused entered a plea of guilty and admitted to the summary of facts as presented by the Prosecution.
- The summary of facts establishes that between 1 August 2014 and 10 August 2024, while employed as a cashier at Kundan Singh Supermarket
in Tamavua, the accused unlawfully appropriated the sum of $3,773.24, belonging to the supermarket. The offence was perpetrated through
a series of transactions and was subsequently uncovered during an internal audit conducted by the supermarket.
- Having considered the guilty plea, I am satisfied that it was unequivocal and hereby convict the accused on the charge of theft.
- In determining the appropriate sentence for this offence, I shall employ the instinctive synthesis method, which is used in Fiji alongside
the two-tier sentencing approach.
- The Supreme Court of Fiji in Qurai v State [2] held that :
“It is significant to note that the Sentencing and Penalties Decree does not seek to tie down a sentencing judge to the two-tiered
process of reasoning described above and leaves it open for a sentencing judge to adopt a different approach, such as " instinctive
synthesis ", by which is meant a more intuitive process of reasoning for computing a sentence which only requires the enunciation
of all factors properly taken into account and the proper conclusion to be drawn from the weighing and balancing of those factors.”
- The maximum penalty for theft under the Crimes Act is ten years’ imprisonment.
- By stealing from your employer, you breached a position of trust.
- In Tubuna v State,[3] His Lordship Justice Sharma held that the applicable tariff for theft by breach of trust ranges from 18 months to three years’
imprisonment.
- An aggravating factor in this case is the offence was committed over an extended period of time.
- In written mitigation, it was submitted that you are currently 29 years old, married with two young children, and unemployed.
- Your counsel further submitted that you are a first-time offender. However, it is well-established law that in breach of trust offences,
little weight is accorded to an offender’s past good conduct (State v Bole [2005] FJHC 470; HAC0038S.2005S (4 October 2005)). Accordingly, I disregard your prior good behavior as a mitigating factor.
- You entered an early guilty plea.
- According to your counsel, you attempted restitution, which was declined by the complainant. With the court’s permission, you
have since deposited the full amount stolen into the court registry.
- Considering all relevant factors, I sentence you to 18 months’ imprisonment for this offence.
- I must now consider whether to suspend the sentence imposed in this case.[4]
- In State v Raymond Roberts[5], her Ladyship Justice Shameem held that :
" the principles that emerge from these cases are that a custodial sentence is inevitable where the accused pleaded not guilty and
makes no attempt at genuine restitution. Where there is a plea of guilty, a custodial sentence may still be inevitable where there
is a bad breach of trust, the money stolen is high in value and the accused shows no remorse or attempt at reparation".
- ELENOA BUA SENIKURACIRI, you entered an early guilty plea and made full restitution. I accept that you have demonstrated remorse for
your actions. Furthermore, you are a first-time offender and are married with dependent children. Having considered all these factors,
I find that a suspended sentence would provide you with a suitable opportunity for rehabilitation.
- Accordingly, I suspend the 18-month custodial sentence for a period of three years.
- Suspended sentence is explained to the accused.
- 28 days to appeal.
Shageeth Somaratne
Resident Magistrate
[1] No. 44 of 2009.
[2] [2015] FJSC 15; CAV24.2014 (20 August 2015).
[3] [2017] FJHC 231; HAA04.2017 (28 March 2017).
[4] S26(2)(b),Sentencing and Penalties Act, No 42 of 2009.
[5] ( HAA 0053 of 2003S).
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2025/21.html