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

Naivi v The State [2004] FJHC 472; HAA0091.2004L (1 October 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA0091 OF 2004L

LEONE NAIVI

v.

THE STATE

Appellant in Person
Mr. M. Korovou for the State

Hearing & Ruling: 1 October 2004

EXTEMPORE RULING

The appellant was convicted at the Sigatoka Magistrates Court on the 11^th May 2004 for larceny of cattle and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 2 years. Particulars of the offence are:

Statement of Offence

LARCENY OF CATTLE: Contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code, Cap. 17.

Particulars of Offence

LEONE NAIVI with another between the 18^th and 20^th day of February 2004 at High Street Naroro, Sigatoka in the Western Division, stole a cow valued at $400.00, the property of HAZURAT GUL s/o Zeharat Gul.

The facts as presented before the Learned Magistrate were that on the 18^th February 2004, the complainant left for Lautoka leaving cattle to graze supervised by a neighbour. On return, on the 20^th February, he found a cattle missing. The matter was reported and investigated which resulted in the arrest of the appellant. The beast which had a value of $400.00 was slaughtered and the two hind legs were taken but the rest of the carcass left by a creek.

The Learned Magistrate in sentencing the appellant to a term of 2 years imprisonment, from the court record, took into account the value of the beast, the fact that it was slaughtered and the appellant’s prior record, which includes matters in 1991 and 2002 for larceny of cattle and a further matter in 1998, for larceny.

The appellant in his notice of grounds of appeal raises issue with the fact that the sentence he received was quite disparate from that that his co-accused received.

I note from a court record that the co-accused was a first offender and that the magistrate found that the appellant was indeed the ringleader.

I have been referred to J. Naca v The State – HAA0016 of 2002S, as to the tariff for this offence, in that matter after considering various authorities, Madam Justice Shameem said that sentences ranged from a suspended sentence to a 2 year term depending upon the aggravation. The State also refers the court to Narend Chand v The State – Crim. Appeal No. 17 of 1998 Labasa where Mr. Justice Pathik considered an appeal where the appellant had received 12 months imprisonment for a similar offence.

His Lordship said and I quote:

“As I said before there is a need for general deterrent sentences for such offences. For it is the general purpose of the criminal law to protect the community and this can be done by making the punishment fit for the offence and the offender and thereby promote respect in the community for the justice of criminal law.

I sympathize with the distress the appellant’s family will suffer but he must realize that this is the direct consequence of the appellant’s own criminal conduct, this cannot be considered a mitigating factor.”

I echo the words of His Lordship, they are most appropriate to this appellant.

Taking account of the value of the beast and the fact that it was slaughtered and the fact that the appellant has on his record, 2 prior convictions for similar offences, I am of the opinion that the penalty imposed by the Learned Magistrate is not such as to entitle this court to interfere with it and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
1 October 2004