IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0016 OF 2003S

Between:

JEKOPE SERUKALOU
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 17th June 2003
Judgment: 18th June 2003

Counsel: Mr N. Lajendra for State
Ms J. Nair for Appellant

JUDGMENT

The Appellant appeals against his sentence of 2½ years imprisonment for the following charge:

Statement of Offence

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE: Contrary to section 293(1)(b) of the Penal Code Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

JEKOPE SERUKALOU and another on the 6th day of February 2003 at Nasinu in the Central Division robbed ANISH CHAND s/o AMESH CHAND of $5.00 cash and immediately before the time of such robbery did use personal violence to the said ANISH CHAND s/o AMESH CHAND.

The facts as outlined by the prosecutor in the lower court, were that on the 6th of February 2003 at 6pm at Veisari, the complainant was taking a short-cut when he felt someone grab him from the back. It was the Appellant. The Appellant then punched the complainant and grabbed his wallet taking $5 cash which was all the money in the wallet. The complainant chased the Appellant and caught him with the help of two police officers. The complainant suffered pain over his face and head but suffered no visible injuries. These facts were admitted by the Appellant. He had no previous convictions. In mitigation, he said he was 25 years old and single, earning his living from growing and selling vegetables.

The learned Magistrate considered the plea of guilty, previous good character, the seriousness of the offence and the public interest. His starting point was 4 years imprisonment, in accordance with the guidelines in Ilaisa Sousou Cava Crim. Case No. HAC0007.2000S. He said that the offence was well-planned and that 1 year should be deducted for the guilty plea, and a further 6 months for good character. He sentenced the Appellant to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a much shorter term would have been appropriate and that suspension should have been considered. She pointed to the small amount of money stolen, the lack of any injuries, and the Appellant’s good character.

State counsel opposed the appeal saying that the sentence was already well below the range of sentences passed for robbery with violence, and that the courts had a duty to pass appropriate sentences for serious offences.

On the facts outlined in court there was no evidence of premeditation. Further, sentences for robbery with violence where weapons are used will be much higher than those where the violence arose from a punch or threats of violence. Similarly sentences will be higher where the victim is especially vulnerable.

In this case, there were no serious aggravating features of the case. There were no injuries, no weapon, no planning or premeditation, the money stolen was a small amount and was recovered because the Appellant was immediately apprehended. He is a first offender and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. I would therefore have started at 4 years imprisonment but reduced the sentence considerably to reflect these mitigating factors, arriving at a sentence of 18 months imprisonment.

On the ground therefore that inadequate weight was put on mitigation, this appeal is allowed. The Appellant’s sentence is reduced to 18 months imprisonment.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
18th June 2003