| Fiji Islands - The State v Bainivanua - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 006 OF 2000S
STATE
&-GB>
-v-
WATISONI BAINIVANUA
Mr V. Vosarogo for the State
Accused in Person
SENTENCE
p class=MsoNormoNormal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The Defendant has been found guilty on one count of Robbery with Violence, and on two counts of Wrongful Confin.
His antecedent report shows that he is 41 years old with two young childrd a wife. He is educated to Class 8 level and has been empl
employed as a casual labourer at the FEA and the Wharf. His previous convictions which number 12 offences include four previous convictions
for Robbery with Violence although they date back to 1985. His more recent convictions are relatively minor and he can be taken to
have kept out of trouble since 1985. In mitigation he confirmed this saying that he was a changed person and he asked for leniency.
The maximum sentence for Robbery with Violence is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence for Wrongful Confinement is 1 year imprent
or $400 fine.
In State -v- Ilaisa Sousou Cava Criminal Ca. HAC 007 of 2000S, I reviewed the authorities on sentences for Robbery with Violence and aand adopted the guidelines
of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in R -v- Moananui [1983] NZCA 66; (1983) NZLR 537. I found that the tariff in Fiji for Robbery with Violence involving the use of weapons was from four to seven years imprisonment.
In this case I find that the prosecution had no evidence as to the value of the goods stolen, from the owners of Rups Investments
Lte amounts alleged in the chhe charge statements totalling almost $30,000, were allegations about which the accused had no personal
knowledge. He admitted to taking only some of the items, totalling considerably less. He will be sentenced on that basis.
ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Aggravating features in this case, include the violence done to one of the securityds, the use of a knife and iron bars by the Defendant’s
accs accomplices, the fact that the Defendant was part of the planning of the robbery, the premeditation behind the crimes and the
existence of previous convictions for similar offences.
Mitigating circumstances are the lapse of time since the offence was committed, the fact the dant himself did not inflict injury,
the relatively low valw value of the stolen goods, the fact that the goods he took were recovered and his recent good behaviour.
Starting at a point of 5 years imprisonmend after adjusting downwards for 1 year for the mitigating circumstances, and 1 year upwardswards
for the aggravating circumstances, I consider a sentence of 5 years imprisonment to be appropriate on Count One. On Counts Two and
Three, the guards were confined in a shipping container for several hours, after being bound, and threatened. They experienced great
fear. I sentence the Defendant to 8 months imprisonment on Count Two, and to 8 months imprisonment on Count Three.
Because all the offences arose from the same incident of the robbery at Rups Investments, the sentences are all to bved concurrently.
Nazhat Shameem/p>
JUDGE
At Suva
25th June 2001
Hac006j.00s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2001/39.html
