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

Vunituraga v State [2015] FJCA 105; AAU62.2014 (13 August 2015)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
[On Appeal from the High Court]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. AAU62 OF 2014 Consolidated with AAU66 of 2014
[High Court Criminal Case No. HAC48 of 2012]

BETWEEN:

1. JOLAME VUNITURAGA
2. LAISENIA VULUMA
Appellants

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram : The Hon. Mr. Justice Daniel Goundar
Counsel : Mr. M. Yunus for the Appellant
Ms P. Madanavosa for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 13 January 2015
Date of Ruling : 13 August 2015

RULING

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The grounds of appeal are:

1. The learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he considered that the robbery to be well planned as aggravated factor despite there was no evidence of planning or premeditation involved outlined in the summary of facts adduced by the State.
   
2. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and in facts when he failed to properly consider parity principle of sentencing co-defendants.
   
3. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he failed to give sufficient discount for the guilty plea.
   
4. That the sentence is harsh and excessive in view of all the circumstances of the case.
   

[2] On 13 January 2015, I heard the application for leave. Counsel for the appellants relied upon his written submissions on leave. Ms Madanavosa appeared for the State. She applied for time to respond in writing to the appellants' submissions. The parties agreed that I can proceed to give my ruling after receiving the State's written response. The State was directed to file submissions by 27 January 2015. However, the State did not comply with that directive.

[3] A further reminder was sent to counsel for the State to respond to the appellants' submissions. The State has not responded. No explanation has been offered by counsel for the State regarding the non-compliance of this Court's directive to respond to the appellants' submissions.

[4] I conclude that by not responding to the appellants' submissions, counsel for the State is not taking an issue regarding granting of leave to the appellants.

[5] I have read the written submissions of the appellants. In my judgment the grounds are arguable.

[6] Result

Leave granted.

..............................................
Hon. Mr. Justice Daniel Goundar
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Solicitors:
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for the Appellants
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent