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

State v Saukilagi [2005] FJHC 13; HAC0021X.2004S (27 January 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC0021 OF 2004S

STATE

v.

JONA SAUKILAGI

Hearing: 24th – 27th January 2005
Sentence: 27th January 2005

Counsel: Mr. D. Goundar for State
Accused in Person

SENTENCE

You have been found guilty on 12 counts of the Information, on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 of larceny and on the remaining counts of obtaining goods or money by false pretences. In total you obtained money or goods to the total value of over $17,000 by using money which had been deposited in your account by the Colonial Bank in error. I have found that you were aware of the error from the moment you checked your balance on the 4th of June 2004, and that each withdrawal and obtaining was done with an intent to defraud and with intention permanently to deprive.

I find also that you are a person of some education, that you have been a licensed school teacher and an Insurance Sales Representative for some years. You are not a naive illiterate person for whom banking procedures might have been a source of mystery or confusion. You found $20,000 in your account, you knew it was not yours, but you took advantage of the error and used the money over 4 days. After the error was discovered, you still had $10,000 from the withdrawal on the 8th of June, or at least a large part of it, but made no attempt to pay the money back. The offer on the 29th of June 2004 to have your salary deducted, was too little too late, and may have been made in an attempt to save your employment at Colonial.

Stealing from the bank is a serious matter. The tariff for simple larceny on first conviction is 2 – 9 months (Ronald Vikash Singh v. State HAA 035 of 2002) and on second conviction a sentence in excess of 9 months. In cases of the larceny of large amounts of money sentences of 1½ years imprisonment (Isoa Codrokadroka v. State Crim. App. HAA 67 of 2002) and 3 years imprisonment have been upheld by the High Court (Sevanaia Via Koroi v. The State Crim. App. HAA 031 of 2001S). Much depends on the value of the money stolen, and the nature of the relationship between victim and defendant. The method of stealing is also relevant.

In this case, I would equate the circumstances of the larceny to a larceny by finding. The fact that you stole from your bank is a serious matter, as is the deliberate and methodical way in which you proceeded to withdraw and use the money.

I take as my starting point 2 years imprisonment. Taking into account all the matters you have raised in mitigation, and treating you as a first offender because your previous convictions are more than 10 years old, I reduce this by 18 months to 6 months imprisonment.

The aggravating factors include the large sums of money used, the lost opportunity to pay the Bank back and the breach of trust. I increase the sentence to 12 months imprisonment on each count of larceny.

The tariff for obtaining by false pretence, is 18 months to 3 years imprisonment. I take as my starting point 2½ years imprisonment. After taking into account all mitigating and aggravating factors, I consider a sentence of 18 months imprisonment to be the appropriate sentence on each count of obtaining by false pretences.

Applying the totality principle, the total sentence would be manifestly excessive. I therefore order that the sentence on each count be served concurrently.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
27th January 2005