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

State v Nair [1990] FJHC 63; HAC0048t.1988s (7 November 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 48 OF 1988

STATE

v.

1. RAJENDRA NAIR
s/o Robin Nair
2. FILIMONE NAIVALUWAQA

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

Mr. S. Senaratne for the Prosecution
Both Accused in Person

SENTENCE

This is another case where the court is faced with the unhappily difficult task of sentencing offenders for an offence that was committed 3 years ago.

Needless to say much water has passed under the bridge since then and indeed a co-accused who was dealt with when the case first came before the Magistrate Court in 1987 has already served a sentence of 2 1/2 years imprisonment that was imposed on him for his part in this offence.

Both accused presently before this court now seek to differentiate themselves from their co-accused both in the roles they played in the commission of the offence and in their personal circumstances.

In particular both accused claim to have married since the incident and started families. With these added responsibilities they both claim to have changed their past ways.

For their sake and certainly for the sake of their young families the court can only hope that both accused are truthful for neither of them can be considered young or immature being 27 years and 34 years of age respectively.

In this case an innocent and helpless woman living alone with her young son and teenage daughter had their home broken into and ransacked in the early hours of the morning of the 25th of June, 1987 by 4 men including these 2 accused persons and although they were only threatened with violence they lost a great deal of property with a total value in excess of $8,000. Only one video deck has been recovered.

It has been said time and again that the courts will do their utmost to protect and ensure that people are able to feel secure and safe in their own homes. The past criminal records of both accused clearly demonstrates that they have had little respect for other people's homes. They certainly showed none in this case.

Furthermore at the time of this present offence the 1st accused Rajendra Nair had an unexpired suspended sentence of 9 months imprisonment and in the case of the 2nd accused Filimone Naivaluwaqa an unexpired binding over order.

Although the sentence and orders have now expired, this fact alone reveals a clear disregard by both accused persons for the orders of the court and more so for the past leniency that has been shown to them. A custodial sentence is unavoidable in the circumstances.

I bear in mind the accused persons guilty pleas and their desire to put this case behind them. I note that neither has re-offended since the commission of this offence and both have acquired additional family responsibilities which may provide them with an incentive to do something useful with their lives.

Each accused is sentenced to 2 1/2 years imprisonment, however I reluctantly grant them this final opportunity to turn away from their criminal past. In doing so I shall take the lenient course of suspending their sentences of 2 1/2 years imprisonment for a period of 3 years. Both sentences to run from today.

The accused are warned that if they should commit an imprisonable offence within the next 3 years then they may be required to serve the present sentence along with whatever sentence may be imposed for that other offence.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
11th July, 1990.

HAC0048T.88S