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

State v Tagicakibau [2011] FJHC 282; HAC022.2011 (23 May 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 022 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

1. JOSEVATA TAGICAKIBAU
2. SOLOMONE QURAI

Counsels: Mr. L. Tabuakoro for the State
Ms. N. Nawasaitoga for both Accused persons as Duty Solicitor

Date of Sentence: 23rd May 2011

SENTENCE

[1] The learned Director of Public Prosecution had preferred the following charge against the 1st and 2nd Accused persons.

"JOSEVATA TAGICAKIBAU and SOLOMONE QURAI are charged with the following offence:

Statement of Offence

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: Contrary to section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

JOSEVATA TAGICAKIBAU and SOLOMONE QURAI on the 12th day of December 2010 at Suva in the Central Division robbed ASHIKA PRASAD of her Toshiba Laptop valued at $1,600.00, LG mobile phone valued at $600.00, Canterbury carry bag valued at $50.00 and wallet, all to the total value of $2,250.00, belonging to the said Ashika Prasad"

[2] Both Accused persons pleaded guilty to the charge at a very early stage of the trial. Court being satisfied with the plea to be unequivocal convicted both of them as charged.

[3] Both Accused persons admitted the summary of facts submitted by the State. It is reproduced for easy reference.

"On the 12th day of December, 2010 at about 1415 hrs, Ashika Prasad f/n Bijay Prasad 25 years Staff nurse of Nabouwalu Hospital was sleeping alone in Room No. 204 at Annandale Apartment situated at Waimanu Road when Solomone Qurai, 21 years old, unemployed of Lot 20 Savai Place, Kinoya and Josevata Tagicakibau 23 years, unemployed of Kalosi Street, Vesivesi entered her room.

The complainant who was asleep at the time realized that somebody was inside the room and woke up. She saw Accused 1 and Accused 2 standing beside her bed. They threatened her to give them some cash. The complainant was afraid and told them to take anything since she did not have any cash. They told her to sit on the bed while Accused 1 and Accused 2 took the following items from the complainant:

1. 1 Toshiba Laptop valued at $1,600.00

2. 1 LG Mobile phone valued at $600.00

3. 1 Canterbury carry bag with wallet valued at $50.00.

Both accused fled the scene with these items after the complainant raised the alarm with the Motel staff.

Accused 2 took the LG phone with him but he was arrested by police on the same day and the LG phone which he had taken was found in the taxi that he was travelling in. He was cautioned interview and he admitted to robbing the complainant. The LG phone has been recovered by the police.

Accused 1 was also arrested and interviewed on a later date and he admitted to the robbing the complainant, Ashika Prasad. He gave information to the police about the whereabouts of the Toshiba laptop since he had sold it to another person and the laptop was recovered by the police...."

[4] As per Section 311 (1) (a) the maximum sentence is 20 years imprisonment.

[5] Now I consider the tariff for the offence of Aggravated Robbery. In State vs Elia Manoa Criminal case No. HAC 108 of 2009 & HAC 61 of 2010 Justice Goundar had imposed 10 years imprisonment. In State v Raymond Johnson HAC 120 of 2008 Justice Goundar commenced the sentence at 8 years and imposed 10 years imprisonment. In State vs Rasaqio (2010) FJHC 287 Justice P Madigan had imposed 9 years imprisonment.

[6] In State vs Rokonabete & Others (2008) FJHC 226 Court summarized the principles to be:

"The dominant factor in assessing seriousness for any types of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened. The degree of injury to the victim or the nature of and duration of threats are also relevant in assessing the seriousness of an offence of robbery with violence. If a weapon is involved in the use or threat of force that will always be an important aggravating feature. Group offending will aggravate an offence because the level of intimidation and fear caused to the victim will be greater. It may also indicate planning and gang activity. Being the ringleader in a group is an aggravating factor. If the victims are vulnerable, such as elderly people and persons providing public transport, then that will be an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors may include the value of times taken and the fact that an offence was committed whilst the offender was on bail.

The seriousness of an offence of robbery is mitigated by factors such as a timely guilty plea, clear evidence of remorse, ready co-operation with the police, response to previous sentences, personal circumstances of the offender, first offence of violence, voluntary return of property taken, playing a minor part, and lack of planning involved".

[7] Considering all these case the tariff for Aggravated Robbery of this kind is 8 years to 14 years.

[8] The Accused persons have entered a lady's room at a motel in the broad daylight, threatened her and robbed a laptop computer, a mobile phone and a wallet. This Court is compelled to take serious note of certain facts:

(a) Entering a Motel in the capital city is serious, mostly the people from out station or foreigners stays there. If this continues travelers will not stay at these places. This will cause severe inconvenience to the travelers and economical loss to the owner and at the end of the day the society is affected.

(b) Computers are no more luxury items. They had become part and partial of Human life these days. Most if not all users keep all important details in the computers and mobile. When this is lost, they become handicapped. Further some of those information can cause serious loss to their bank, credit card account and other vital details. In certain cases it can cause loss of their life time research studies.

(c) Similarly, mobile phones are also not treated as luxury equipments. Most of the people store all their contact details in their mobile phones. If they loose the phone they might loose all their contacts. Sometimes, they will not be able to contact their immediate family members for emergency.

[9] Considering all factors the Court commence your sentence at 8 years imprisonment.

[10] The Court observes following factors are aggravating.

a) Both of you had entered a Motel room in a broad day light.

b) You have threatened a young female nurse victim.

c) Both of you were actually involved in robbing a laptop, mobile phone and a bag.

d) Stealing of laptops and Mobile phones was treated serious attack on another Persons personal belongings.

Considering all above aggravating factors your sentence is increased by 4 years. Now your sentence is 12 years imprisonment.

[11] Following factors are considered as mitigating circumstances.

a) You have pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

b) 1st Accused you are 24 years single.

c) You claim that you support your mother and sisters.

d) 2nd Accused you are 22 years with two small children.

e) Police had recovered the laptop and the mobile phone.

f) Both of you are remorseful.

g) You have co-operated with the police at the investigations.

Considering all mitigating circumstances your sentence is reduced by 5 years. Now your sentence is 7 years.

12. Section 18 (1) of the Sentencing & Penalties Decree. The above section states as follows:

"Subject to sub-section (2), when a court sentences an offender to be imprisoned for life or for a term of 2 years or more the court must fix a period during which the offender is not eligible to be released on parole".

[13] Considering section 18 (1) of the Sentencing & Penalties Decree I impose 5 years as non parole period.

[14] 1st Accused Josevata Tagicakibau and 2nd Accused Solomone Qurai you are sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with 5 years as non parole period.

[15] 30 days to appeal.

S Thurairaja
Judge

At Suva

Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for both Accused persons as Duty Solicitor