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

Utovou v The State [2002] FJHC 99; HAA0010J.2002S (15 March 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0010 OF 2002S
(Suva MC Case No. 3371/01)

Between:

TIMALETU UTOVOU
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
Mr W. Kurisaqila for Respondent

Hearing: 12th March 2002
Judgment: 15th March 2002

JUDGMENT

On 21^st January 2002, the Appellant was convicted on her plea of guilty to a charge of Receiving Stolen Property. The charge read as follows:

Statement of Offence

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: Contrary to Section 313(1) of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

ASESELA TAWAKE and TIMALETI UTOVOU between 22^nd day of October 2001 and 24^th day of October, 2001 at Suva in the Central Division, received one Seiko Wrist Watch valued at $200.00, one Gold Medal valued at $400.00,one Gold Button valued at $200.00, one Gold Chain valued at $50.00, three Purses valued at $7.00, US$2,200.00 and F$87.94, the property of PARK GUINAM, knowing the same to have been stolen.

She was sentenced to three years= imprisonment. She now appeals against her sentence, saying it was harsh and excessive, and that her parents are old and sick. At the hearing of this appeal she also said that she did not know that the goods she received were stolen. However she said she knew they were not her husband=s property, and that she had understood the charge when it was read to her. State Counsel opposed the appeal, saying that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

In the Magistrates= Court the Appellant and her husband both pleaded guilty to Receiving Stolen Property (the alternative charge) after the charge was read to them and explained. They said they understood it, and admitted it. The facts were then outlined. The prosecutor said that on the 22^nd of October 2001 at 4am, Park Guinam was robbed of cash and jewellery to the total value of $31,000 as specified on Count 1 (the charge of Robbery with Violence). The Appellant and her husband were arrested on 24^th October 2001 at Samabula Police Station. They were searched and found in possession of the items listed on Count 2. They included a gold medal, a wristwatch, a gold chain and three purses containing Fiji and U.S. money. They were interviewed and the Appellant=s husband said he had received these items from another person, and had given them to the Appellant. The Appellant admitted these facts and admitted eight previous convictions, four of which were for offences of dishonesty.

The learned Magistrate sentenced both to three years imprisonment after giving them discount for the guilty pleas. He said:

AThe Court takes a very serious view on offenders such as these two because if there are no outlets or receivers of stolen properties, there would be very little or no robberies at all. Very often, the offenders do not tell the Police the name(s) of the person(s) involved in the robbery, so the cycle goes on and on.@

I agree with his remarks. The Appellant was fortunate to receive a three year term, given her previous record, and the value of the property received. Further, in the face of the clear record of the proceedings in the Magistrates= Court, I do not accept that she did not understand the charge of Receiving Stolen Property. She raised this for the first time at the hearing of the appeal, and this ground did not feature in her petition of appeal.

This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
15^th March 2002