I have heard all that counsel has had to say on your behalf. I take into account your deprived childhood auth, the fact that since
19ce 1997 you have earnestly tried to earn an honest living by selling watches, the length of time you have already spent in custody,
the remorse you have expressed and the nature of the provocative act done by Asilika.
The tariff for Manslaughter in Fiji, is between 12 years imprisonment and suspended terms orisonment. Suspended sentences, and sentences
on the lower ower range are usually reserved for cases where the provocation was severe, and the violence negligible.
In Kim Nam Bae -v- The State CApp. No. AAU0015/1998S, the Court of Appeal said, at p.4:
“The cases demonstrate that the penalty imposed for manslaughter ranges from a suspended sentence where there may have been grave
provocation to 12 years imprisonment where the degree of violence is high and the provocation is minimal.”
In that case, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 6 years imprisonment in a case wh husband had beaten his wife to death. That
beating took plok place in the course of a fight between husband and wife, and there was evidence that the accused was heavily intoxicated.
In Navitalai Rauve -v- The State Crim. App. No. 13 of 1990, a manslaughter involving a high degree of violence led to a sentence of 10 years imprisonment. The Court
of Appeal said:
“However, we note that punishment in Fiji for manslaughter of a serious kind has normally ranged from 7 to 10 years imprisonment depending
on the degree of gravity.”
ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> In Eparama Sogotubu -v- The State Crip. No. AAU001/00S the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 8 years imprisonment for a case case where the Defendant burnt his
defacto wife as she lay sleeping in their house after a domestic dispute.
In State -v- Anand Dinesh Mani & Anr. HAC005 of 2000S, I sentenced the 1st Defendant to six years imprisonment for manhter on the ground of provoprovocation. In that case
the provocation was that the offender discovered that his girlfriend had another boyfriend, a fight resulted in the course of which
a knife was used by the offender on the boyfriend. In that case, the provocation was not minimal, and although a knife was used,
the assault was neither as sustained nor as brutal as the one before me today.
I would class this case as one of the gravest types of manslaughter cas come before the court. The fact that one of the assessors
gave her opinion that you shouldhould be found guilty of murder, is significant. The facts show that while assaulting Asilika, she
never fought back, nor tried to defend herself. You continued to assault her after you knew that she was bleeding from a cut on her
forehead. You banged her head against the floor and walls of the room, knowing she was already badly hurt. And you did so because
you wanted her to confess to stealing your money, and because you thought she had taken it. Your actions showed a callous disregard
for your partner’s life.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> From your previous convictions, I see that you have previous convictions for Robbery with Violence which show tou have a propensity
for vior violence. Taking into account the nature of the assault in this case, I consider this case to be one of extreme violence
with minimal provocation.
I do not consider your relationship to the woman you killed to mitigate the circumstances. Indeed, it aggravates the circumstances.
She was your partner and should have been able to trust you not to assault her. I would be failing in my duty to the public, if I
did not pass a sentence on you which reflected the abhorrence of society to the violent attack on a defenceless woman. Asilika was
not your chattel, to do as you pleased with her, and her life, as with all human life, was precious.
In all the circumstances, I sentence you to 9 years imprisonment.
Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE
At Suva
1st November 2001
Hac0007j.01s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2001/84.html
