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

Koroi v State [2001] FJHC 203; Criminal Appeal 22.2001 (27 June 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2001
(Labasa Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 710/2000)

Between:

JOSEVATA KOROI
Appellant

And

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. J. Rabuku for the State

JUDGMENT

The appellant was charged on the first Count for the offence of larceny contrary to section 259 and 262 of the Penal Code Cap. 17 in that on 2 November 2000 at Seaqaqa he ‘stole a billy goat valued at $150.00 from the grazing land of Prem Chand s/o Ram Autar, the property of Prem Chand’ and in the second with act with intent to cause grievous harm contrary to section 224(a) of the Penal Code.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and after trial he was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months on each count to be served consecutively making a total of 2 years.

He has appealed against both conviction and sentence.

The appellant says that the sentence is harsh. He says that the ‘evidence is not true - I didn’t commit any offence. I was not there. I don’t know anything. It’s made up - had dispute with Police Officer - crying till today’.

The learned State Counsel has vigorously opposed the appeal. He said that the ‘evidence is clear’ and the appellant was properly identified by the complainant. The complainant knows the appellant well. The learned magistrate assessed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and considered the unsworn statement of the appellant in his defence. He said that the appeal against conviction is unfounded and that the appeal be dismissed.

The Magistrate was in a better position to judge the credibility of witnesses and make findings of fact than the appellate Court. He watched the demeanour of the witnesses and the accused. This Court also had the opportunity to watch his demeanour and he appeared quite unimpressive; he was more of an actor in a drama than anything else. I had to ask him if he was ‘well’ and he replied ‘I am well, only thing I didn’t like is what police are saying’.

In all the circumstances of this case this Court will not interfere with the Magistrate’s findings. I hold that the conviction was proper.

As for sentence, in view of the fact that the ‘goat’ in question was recovered the sentence of 12 months is on the high side compared to 12 months for a more serious offence in the second count.

The sentence of 12 months on the first count is varied by setting it aside and substituting it with one of 6 months. The sentence on the second count is neither harsh nor excessive or wrong in principle and remains undisturbed except that it is to be served consecutive to the sentence on the first count as before making a total of 18 months.

The appeal is allowed to that extent.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Labasa
27 June 2001