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

State v Vuluma [2010] FJHC 180; HAC100.2010 (27 May 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC 100 of 2010

STATE

V

URAIA VULUMA

Hearing: 25th May 2010
Ruling: 27th May 2010

Counsel: Ms T. Leweni for State
Mr. S. Titoko for Accused

RULING

[1] This case was transferred to the High Court for sentence. On 7 April 2010, the Accused pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to three counts of defilement of a girl between 13 and 16 years of age. On 14 April 2010, he admitted the facts tendered by the prosecution and mitigated in person. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 24 May 2010 for sentence.

[2] However, on 20 May 2010, the learned Magistrate of her own motion transferred the case to the High Court for sentence. The transfer order appears to have been made in the absence of the parties.

[3] Ms Leweni who was also the counsel for the State in the Magistrates’ Court informed the Court that she does not know the reason for the transfer of this case to the High Court for sentence.

[4] The transfer is made pursuant to section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009 which came into effect on 1 February 2010. The Decree repealed the Criminal Procedure Code which contained similar procedure in section 222.

[5] Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Decree reads:

(1) Where –

(a) a person over the age of 18 years is convicted by a magistrate for an offence; and

(b) the magistrate is of opinion (whether by reason of the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission or the previous history of the accused person) that the circumstances of the case are such that greater punishment should be imposed in respect of the offence than the magistrate has power to impose –

the magistrate may, by order, transfer the person to the High Court for sentencing.

(2) If the person is transferred under sub-section (1) to the High Court, a copy of the order for transfer and of the charge in respect of which the person was convicted shall be sent to the Chief Registrar of the High Court.

(3) The High Court shall enquire into the circumstances of the case and may deal with the person in any manner in which the person could be dealt with if the person had been convicted by the High Court.

(4) A person transferred to the High Court under this section has the same right of appeal to the Court of Appeal as if the person had been convicted and sentenced by the High Court.

(5) The High Court, after hearing submissions by the prosecutor, may remit the person transferred for sentence in custody or on bail to the Magistrates Court which originally transferred the person to the High Court and the person shall then be dealt with by the Magistrates Court, and the person has the same right of appeal as if no transfer to the High Court had occurred.

[6] The transfer under section 190 is discretionary. Before the discretion is exercised the magistrate must be satisfied of two matters.

[7] Firstly, the magistrate must be satisfied that the convicted person is over the age of 18 years.

[8] Secondly, the magistrate must be satisfied that by reason of the nature of offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission or previous history of the offender that greater punishment should be imposed than the magistrate has power to impose.

[9] In State v Apisai Vakacoko Criminal Case No. HAC 150 of 2008 (23 September 2008), this Court held the transfer order to be invalid because the magistrate failed to form his own opinion after directing his mind to the matters mentioned in section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code before transferring the case to the High Court for sentence. In other words, the magistrate must record the reasons for the transfer.

[10] The law on transfer to the High Court for sentence has not been changed. The magistrate is obliged to comply with the provisions of section 190 before transferring a case to the High Court for sentence.

[11] Even if the transfer was valid, this does not seem to be a case which cannot be appropriately dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court.

[12] The facts admitted by the accused is not part of the court record. From the mitigation, it can be seen that the accused is a first time offender and is 20 years old. The exact age of the complainant is not provided. Without all the necessary facts, it is difficult to determine the presence of aggravating factors to warrant a sentence that is more than the maximum jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court. It seems to be that this is not a case that the Magistrates’ Court cannot sentence within the maximum jurisdiction of 10 years imprisonment that it is empowered by law to impose on one count and 14 years imprisonment if there are more than two counts.

[13] For the reasons given, the transfer order is quashed and the case is remitted to the Magistrates’ Court to sentence the accused.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
27th May 2010

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Naco Chambers for Accused