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

Rakoso v The State [2004] FJHC 135; HAA0070J.2004S (13 August 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0070 OF 2004S

Between:

SAKIUSA RAKOSO
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Mr. J. Rabuku & Mr. D. Sharma for State

Hearing: 6th August 2004
Judgment: 13th August 2004

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was charged with the following offences:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

BURGLARY: Contrary to Section 299(a) of the Penal Code Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

SAKIUSA RAKOSO and LENAITASI VUNISA, on the 22nd day of February, 2004 at Samabula in the Central Division, by night broke and entered the dwelling house of SAMI NAIDU s/o POLAIYA with intent to commit a felony namely to steal.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

LARCENY IN DWELLING HOUSE OF A PROPERTY TO VALUE AMOUNTING NOT LESS THAN TEN DOLLARS: Contrary to Section 270 of the Penal Code Act 17.

Particulars of Offence

SAKIUSA RAKOSO and LENAITASI VUNISA, on the 22nd day of February 2004 at Samabula in the Central Division, stole from the dwelling house of SAMI NAIDU s/o POLAIYA, 3 stainless steel kitchen sink valued $700-00 and assorted carpentry tools valued $100-00 a value amounting to not less than ten dollars the property of SAMI NAIDU s/o POLAIYA to the total value of $800-00.

He pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on each count, and a suspended sentence of 18 months was activated. He is now serving a total term of 2 years imprisonment. He appeals against this total sentence.

The facts were that on the 22nd of February 2004, the complainant discovered that his house had been broken into. The items in the charge were missing. The Appellant and his co-accused were arrested. All the stolen items were recovered. The facts were admitted.

The Appellant had 5 previous convictions, three of them for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. His last conviction was dated the 1st of January 2003 and the 18 month suspended sentence was imposed. The operational period was 3 years. One year later he committed the offences which are the subject of this appeal.

The learned Magistrate asked the Appellant why his suspended sentence should not be activated. He said that he had separated from his wife, that he and his co-accused were drunk and short of money. None of these reasons is a sufficient reason not to activate the suspended sentence. Nor is the total sentence imposed of 2 years imprisonment excessive in total. The courts have shown the Appellant considerable leniency in the past. I find nothing in his submissions in court and in the lower court to lead to a belief that his sentence is harsh, excessive or wrong in principle.

This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
13th August 2004