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

Duidomo v The State [1991] FJHC 19; HAA0002.1991 (22 February 1991)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 1991

Between:

LEMEKI DUIDOMO
Appellant

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. J. Prakash for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant who was the third accused was jointly charged with 2 others for an offence of Assault With Intent to Rob. He pleaded guilty and upon his conviction was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.

The facts of the case are that the appellant and his compatriots approached a night watchman of the J.S. Hill premises in Lami and asked him for a roll of cigarette and then demanded money from him whilst threatening him with a hacksaw blade. The watchman yelled out and his head was forced against a concrete post opening a 6 cm long cut on his forehead which bled profusely. The assailants left him and ran off when they were disturbed by another security officer approaching the scene.

The appellant appeals against both his conviction and sentence on several grounds which may be simplified into two, namely, that he did not commit the offence and that the sentence is disparate, harsh and excessive.

As to his conviction the appellant pleaded guilty to the offence after it had been read and explained to him presumably in a language that he understood. He also admitted the "blanket facts" outlined by the police prosecutor without attempting in anyway to distinguish his role in the incident from that of his co-accused. Furthermore in mitigation he is recorded as having asked for forgiveness and leniency!

If I may say so an "innocent man" is hardly likely to ask for forgiveness or leniency for an offence that he did not commit or did not in any event believe he had committed.

Nothing has been placed before this Court which would cast doubt on the voluntariness or equivocality of the appellant's plea of guilty and in the circumstances his appeal against conviction is dismissed.

The sentence of 9 months imprisonment although different in its immediacy from the suspended sentence imposed on one of the appellant's co-accused is easily attributed to the differences in their past records and ages.

This was a gratuitous attack on an innocent helpless man who was merely minding his business and which caused him a serious head injury which required stitches.

The appeal against sentence is also dismissed as being totally without merit.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
22nd February, 1991.