IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 0024 OF 2005

BETWEEN

1. JALE DELAITIVI
2. SIMIONE NIUMATAIWALU
Appellants

AND

THE STATE
Respondent

Counsel Ms. S. Vaniqi for the Appellants
Ms. N. Tikoisuva for the Respondent

Date of Hearing 21st February, 2006
Date of Judgment: 21st February, 2006

JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

[1] I accept that the robbery carried out by these two appellants was an opportunistic one. It had not been planned. There was no injury to the victim and no weapons were used. Nevertheless, it must have been frightening for the victim. Such events make people very nervous for a long time.

[2] The record of each appellant is bad. Each has offences for dishonesty and for violence. In respect of Jale Delaitivi there is the breach of a suspended sentence.

[3] I accept Simione Niumataiwalu has not been convicted of any offence for five years after what was clearly a bad start in life. Delaitivi was convicted of robbery with violence in 2000.

[4] I find that the magistrate was right to give a third off the sentence for the pleas of guilty. That is the maximum that any defendant is likely to have a sentence reduced by as a result of a guilty plea.

[5] I can find nothing wrong in the way the magistrate calculated the starting point for the sentence in this case.

[6] I do look to one particular fact in this case which is highly unusual. This was the speed with which the case ran from commission to sentence namely five days. There was no prevarication. There was no attempt to hide from what had been done. In these very unusual circumstances I consider it right to reduce the sentence of each to one of three and a half years imprisonment. I will not implement the suspended sentence. It must however be always remembered that there will be sentences of imprisonment for violent robbery and that these sentences will not be short.

(R.J. Coventry)
JUDGE