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

Vukivou v State [2015] FJCA 109; AAU0084.2013 (13 March 2015)

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

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: AAU 0084 OF 2013
[High Court Case No: HAC 68/2012]

BETWEEN:

JEKOPE VUKIVOU
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram : Goundar JA
Counsel : Mr. J. Savou for the Appellant
Mr. M. Korovou for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 26 February 2015
Date of Ruling : 13 March 2015

RULING

[1] On 7 November 2012, the appellant was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment with a non parole period of 4 years for aggravated robbery by the Magistrates' Court exercising an extended jurisdiction. On 15 July 2013, he filed an application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction. The appeal was late by seven months.

[2] After numerous adjournments, the appellant engaged counsel. He now appeals against sentence only on the following ground:

The Learned sentencing Magistrate erred in law when he failed to separately deduct the time the Appellant had spent in remand.

[3] The ground of appeal is devoid of any merit. The appellant's remand period was not treated as a mitigating factor. But when it came to the quantum of discount, the learned Magistrate gave a total reduction of 2 years for the mitigating factors and the remand period. The length of remand was two months, which means that the total reduction for the mitigating factors was 22 months. The question of quantum is a matter for the sentencing court. As far as the remand period was given sufficient weight, there cannot be any arguable error in the sentencing discretion of the trial Magistrate.

[4] The appellant's sentence is lenient; given the tariff for aggravated robbery is 10 to 16 years (Kean v State unreported Cr. App. No. AAU95/08; 13 November 2013). The victim, a 73 year old man and his wife were robbed at knife point inside their home. The circumstances of the robbery clearly justified a sentence of at least 10 years' imprisonment. The appellant will run the risk of his sentence being enhanced by the Full Court if leave is granted.

Result
[5] Extension of time refused.

[6] Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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

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