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

Vula v The State [1990] FJHC 26; Haa0121j.89s (21 February 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 121 & 122 OF 1989

Between:

TANIELA VULA
Appellant

v.

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. R. Perera for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted on his guilty plea to 2 counts of Robbery with Violence. Both offences were charged separately but were dealt with together on the 10th of July 1989 by the Nausori Magistrate Court.

Upon his conviction the appellant was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 12 months and 18 months making a total of 30 months imprisonment.

The appellant has appealed against the cumulative sentence saying it is harsh and excessive and urging his youth in support.

The appellant was born on the 16th of August 1971 and is not yet 19 years of age. He already has 3 previous convictions for which he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in April 1988.

Whilst serving he escaped from prison and received a further prison sentence of 2 months so that he would have been discharged in May 1989.

These present offences were committed in June and July 1989 barely 2 months after the appellant's release from prison and at a time when he was living in a reasonably stable home with his sister at Waila.

He has clearly not learned very much from his time in prison and that is very unfortunate for such a young man.

In these particular robberies the appellant's modus operandi was almost identical: he hired a taxi to take him to Waila and on an isolated feeder road the taxi driver was robbed of $10 on each occasion. In one instance the driver was punched and sustained a cut on the left cheek and on another a knife was used to threaten the driver.

Taxi drivers provide a much-needed public service sometimes going to destinations that are not served by buses and often outside the normal hours of public transport.

As was pointed out by the learned trial magistrate when sentencing the appellant:

"People like you (the appellant) are causing difficulties to the public of Nausori in getting the services of taxis and I don't blame taxi drivers if they don't pick Fijian passengers because of the potential dangers of being robbed."

I agree with the learned trial magistrate that a deterrent custodial sentence is called for in cases where taxi drivers are robbed.

At the hearing of the appeal the appellant spoke in English and proved himself to be both intelligent and articulate. He professes to be ashamed of what he has done and asks to be allowed to return to his parents at Taveuni.

He has already served 7 months of his sentence and is not due to be released until early 1991.

I must say it does appear that the magistrates who have dealt with the appellant in the past have not given him a chance by imposing non-custodial sentences first before sending him to prison.

Nevertheless these are serious offences and I cannot release the appellant from prison but I can show him some mercy by ordering the sentences to be served concurrently thus reducing the effective prison term to one of 18 months imprisonment with effect from the 10th of July 1989.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
21st February, 1990.

HAA0121J.89S