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

Seveti v The State [2005] FJHC 61; HAA0016J.2005S (23 March 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: HAA0016 of 2005S

Between:

MALAKAI SEVETI
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 18th March 2005
Judgment: 23rd March 2005

Counsel: Appellant in Person
Ms N. Tikoisuva for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellant was charged with robbery with violence on one count, and unlawful use of motor vehicle on count two. It was alleged, that on the 12th of December 2004, at Nasinu, the Appellant with three others unlawfully used the motor vehicle of one Mohammed Haru, a carrier driver, and robbed him of $22 in cash and shoes valued at $25, and that the group of men used personal violence on the victim.

The charges were read and explained to the Appellant on the 15th of December 2004, and he pleaded guilty. The facts, which he admitted, were that he and the three other men, hired the victim’s van at the Makoi Shopping Centre, and told him to take them to Tuirara. At Tuirara, one of the men held a knife against the victim’s neck and took the cash and shoes from him. They then dragged him to the back seat, tied up his hands and legs, blindfolded him and drove off. They left the victim in a vacant house and drove off in the van. The victim managed to free himself, and made his way to the Valelevu Police Station, where he reported the matter. The van was later found, undamaged, in Bryce Street.

These facts were admitted. The Appellant asked for leniency. He had 5 previous convictions.

The learned Magistrate said that the offences were prevalent and serious, he correctly reminded himself as to the tariff, he started at the lowest end of the tariff and sentenced the Appellant to 5 years imprisonment.

Although the Appellant’s letter of appeal was only against sentence, in court he submitted that he should not have been convicted because he personally used no violence, and the facts did not disclose how he was culpable. However, as I explained to him, the doctrine of joint enterprise is that all persons who take part in a criminal offence are jointly liable if they knowingly agreed to a common unlawful purpose, and if an offence was committed which was a probable consequence of the unlawful purpose. In this case, the Appellant agreed that he was one of the group which persuaded the victim to take his van to Tuirara. He was one of the group which tied up the victim and abandoned him in a vacant house, having robbed him of his money and shoes. And finally, one member of the group held a knife to the victim’s neck in the course of the robbery. During all of these events, the Appellant remained part of the group, and made no attempt to extricate himself from the joint enterprise. In law, he was as culpable as the others, even if he used no violence himself. I am satisfied that the facts did disclose the offences charged.

In relation to sentence, I see nothing harsh or unprincipled about a 5 year term of imprisonment for an offence which appears to have become increasingly common in Suva. Van drivers do a valuable service for the public. They often drive at night in remote areas. They have to trust their passengers. Robbing them with the use of violence justifies a custodial sentence, which reflects society’s disapproval of such attacks.

The 5 year term of imprisonment was within the tariff and is correct in principle. This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
23rd March 2005