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

Ikanidevo v The State [2002] FJHC 81; HAA0007j.2002b (20 May 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2002
(Taveuni Mag. Ct. Crim. Case No. 331/01)

Between:

ABOROSIO IKANIDEVO
Appellant

and

STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr. J. Rabuku for the State

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against sentence on the ground that it is harsh and excessive.

The appellant was on 12 November 2001 on his own plea of guilty convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment along with two others for the offence of larceny of cattle contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code Cap. 17. He had with two others between 1 June 2001 and 8 October 2001 at Vatuwiri Estate, Taveuni stolen a bull valued at $300 the property of the said Vatuwiri Estate.

The appellant who is a 20 year old farmer with one conviction submitted that the sentence is harsh compared to the sentences given for other offences. He said that his co-accused Lepani Temo who has a number of previous convictions received the same sentence as him. He asked for reduction in sentence.

The learned counsel for the State agreed that the sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment is on the high side as there is nothing in the record to show that the mitigating factors have been taken into account although on the same day in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2002 some leniency was shown to the appellant by imposing a sentence of three months’ imprisonment concurrent to the sentence in this Appeal.

After hearing the appellant and the learned State Counsel I consider that the sentence is on the high side as in the absence of anything on the Record it is possible that the learned Magistrate may not have taken the mitigating factors into account. There is no doubt that the appellant has committed a serious offence and offenders ought to be adequately punished. Should the offence become prevalent Magistrates will be justified in imposing severe sentences.

For these reasons the sentence is set aside and it is substituted by a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed to that extent.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Labasa
20 May 2002