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

State v Tukana [1990] FJHC 61; Hac0012t.88s (7 September 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12 OF 1988

STATE

v.

1. INIA TUKANA
2. IZAAZ KHAN
s/o Shaheed Khan

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to Section 293(b) of the Penal Code Cap.17

Mr. S. Senaratne for the Prosecution
All Accuseds present

SENTENCE

All 2 accused persons have been convicted of an offence for which our law provides a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In the case of the 1st accused Ilikena Bula he pleaded guilty and in the case of Inia Tukana and Izaaz Khan they have been convicted after trial before 3 assessors who clearly believed the evidence of the victim to that of the accused.

This offence was a cowardly attack on an innocent salesman going about his normal business. The offence was committed in broad daylight and although the victim sustained only minor injuries to the head and nose he was robbed of cash in excess of $400 and his wristwatch.

I note however that a sum of $309.10 cash and the watch were recovered from the 1st accused and I order that they be returned to their prospective owners after the expiration of the appeal period. The cash is to be given to Central Manufacturing Company Ltd and the wristwatch to the victim.

It is always a difficult task to sentence convicted persons and this is not made any easier by the length of time it has taken to finally dispose of this case. The offence occurred in September 1987 and it is now almost 3 years since.

Nevertheless the law has a "long arm" and an even "longer memory" and persons who commit offences must be punished lest they think that by evading the law they may also somehow elude the consequences of their criminal actions.

I propose in this case to deal with each accused person separately for sentencing purposes.

The first accused Ilikena Bula pleaded guilty on the 17th of April 1990 and has been remanded in custody since to await the trial of his co-accused. He is at present serving a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.

He professes to be a changed man but his record of previous convictions speak otherwise. Indeed the sentences he is now serving were for unrelated offences committed after the present offence.

On the other hand he has pleaded guilty and that is a factor in his favour for which some leniency may be shown.

The most lenient sentence of the court for Ilikena Bula is one of 12 months imprisonment which I order to be served consecutive to the sentence now being served by him.

The 2nd accused Inia Tukana on the other hand is a first offender. He was born on the 24th of April 1970 and was barely 17 years of age at the time of the offence. Since 1987 he has not re-offended and that augers well for his future. The probation officer's report speaks highly of his involvement in community work and sporting activities.

Nevertheless he was a principal offender in this robbery.

He too is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, however, in view of his relative youth and this being his first offence I am willing to give him the chance he asks for in the hope that he will reform his ways, accordingly his sentence is suspended for a period of 3 years.

The accused Inia Tukana is warned that if he commits an imprisonable offence in the next 3 years he will be brought before the court and may be required to serve this 12 months along with any other term that may be imposed upon him.

Finally I turn to the 3rd accused Izaaz Khan. He played a less active role in this offence but nonetheless a cowardly and if I may say so a "parasitic" one.

He has previous convictions for minor offences and may be treated as a first offender for present purposes. he was 19 years at the time of the offence and his involvement in it, the probation officer attributes to the bad influence of his associates and the environment in which he lived in at the time.

Since then his family has moved to a different area and one can only hope that he has met and made more law abiding friendships.

The sentence of the court is 12 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years and like the 2nd accused he is warned that if he commits an imprisonable offence in the next 3 years he may be required to serve this sentence in addition to any other that he may be sentenced to.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
9th July, 1990.

HAC0012T.88S