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

Gukisuva v State [2007] FJHC 68; HAA 117.2007 (26 October 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: HAA 117 of 2007

Between:

VILIAME GUKISUVA
Appellant

And:

THE STATE
Respondent

Hearing: 19th October 2007
Judgment: 26th October 2007

Counsel: Appellant in person
Ms S. Hamsa for State

JUDGMENT

The Appellant pleaded guilty to the offences of burglary and larceny on the 5th of June 2007. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He appeals against sentence, saying that his guilty plea had not been taken into account and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

He was charged with entering the dwelling house of David Harish Chand on the 22nd of December 2006, and stealing a stereo worth $15000. He pleaded guilty after waiving his right to counsel. The facts were that the complainant was asleep inside his house when he heard someone force his grill door open. He saw a man enter the house and steal the stereo. On the same night the Appellant gave the stereo to one Tevita Vakalolo at Navaka Village, Noco. The Appellant was arrested and charged. Under caution, he admitted the offence.

These facts were admitted. The Appellant had 3 previous convictions. He is 29 years old, a farmer and married with 2 children. He expressed remorse, saying he was now a farmer and had changed his life.

The learned Magistrate identified the tariff as being 2-3 years. He picked 2 years imprisonment as his starting point and adjusted the sentence for the plea of guilty and the recovery of the stolen item. He found the breaking into a home during the night when the complainant was there, to be an aggravating factor. He sentenced the Appellant to 16 months imprisonment.

This sentence is below the tariff for burglary offences and cannot be described as a lenient sentence. State counsel referred to the cases of Suguvanua v. The State [2004] HAA 84 of 2004, Lasaro Tuberi v. The State HAA 116 of 2006 and Lorosio Vulaca v. State HAA 31 of 2007, to submit that the sentence was well below the accepted tariff of 2-3 years.

I agree. There is no merit in this appeal. Indeed, if anything the sentence imposed was lenient. This appeal is dismissed.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
26th October 2007