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

Navunicagi v The State [2003] FJHC 85; HAA0105J.2002S (7 February 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0105 OF 2002S

Between:

ILIVASI NAVUNICAGI
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 31st January 2003
Judgment: 7th February 2003

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Ms L. Chandra for State

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was charged with the following offence:

Statement of Offence

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

Particulars of Offence

ILIVASI NAVUNICAGI, on the 15th day of September, 2002 at Suva in the Central Division, robbed SHALEND KUMAR s/o BHARIO LAL, of $50.00 in cash, Alcatel mobilefone valued at $329.00 and taxi meter valued at $450.00 all to the total value of $829.00 and before such robbery threatened to use personal violence on the said SHALEND KUMAR s/o BHARIO LAL.

He pleaded guilty to the charge on the 17th of September 2002. The facts were that on 15th September 2002 at 2pm the Appellant asked the victim, a taxi driver, to take him to Valenicina, Lami. The victim drove him there. When they arrived, the Appellant told him to stop the taxi. He then threatened the victim, and took the items listed in the charge. The Appellant was later arrested and charged. The taxi meter and mobile phone were recovered. The cash was not.

The Appellant had 7 previous convictions for offences including larceny in dwelling house and factory breaking entering and larceny. Further the offence was committed during the operational period of a suspended sentence imposed by this court on 18th July 2001. The learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment for the offence, and activated 12 months of the 2 year suspended sentence. The Appellant appeals against this total sentence of 4 years and 4 months, saying that it is harsh and excessive.

I do not agree. The tariff for robbery with violence is 4 years to 7 years imprisonment. The robbery was planned, it was against a taxi-driver who by the very nature of his job, needs to trust the passengers to whom he is providing an important service, and part of the proceeds of the crime were never recovered. Nor has the Appellant compensated the victim for the loss of the $50.00. Further, he was fortunate to avoid activation of the full term of his suspended sentence.

For these reasons this appeal is wholly dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
7th February 2003