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

State v Vunisa [2011] FJHC 51; HAC10.2011 (17 February 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 10 OF 2011

STATE

v

SAVENACA MILLER VUNISA

Ms L. Vateitei for the State
Accused in Person

Date of Hearing: 28 January and 15 February 2011
Date of Sentence: 17 February 2011

SENTENCE

[1] On the 28th January 2011, the accused confirmed a plea of guilty he had entered in the Court below to two separate charges of aggravated robbery. On agreeing a set of facts read to him, he was found guilty and convicted on both counts.

[2] The facts agreed are that at about 8.00pm on the 19th November 2010 he, with another, entered the Ravoravo Pool Centre in Namaka and therein they robbed Mohammed Nafiz of various items of electronic equipment, cash, cigarettes and foodstuffs to a total value of $1748, and at the time punched and threatened the victim. The two then stole some shoes and a mobile phone from Mohammed Naweed on the same evening.

[3] The accused is 17 years of age, and is studying commercial cooking at T.P.A.F. in Namaka. He is a sole child living with his parents. He has no previous convictions. He expresses great remorse and asks for forgiveness. He tells me that he is aware he has his whole future, probably as a chef, before him. He says that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was led astray by others.

[4] The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment and the Courts in Fiji have been consistently imposing long terms of imprisonment to reflect the community's distaste for crimes of violence and theft. As Goundar, J. said in Susu - HAC 54 of 2010, the crime now attracts sentences of eight to fourteen years imprisonment.

[5] The accused does present himself with strong mitigating features, which are:

• his guilty plea at a very early stage.
  
• his obvious remorse.
  
• his young age.
  
• his lack of previous convictions.
  

[6] Despite the now accepted tariff for this offence it will only be in very exceptional circumstances that this Court will imprison a 17 year old with no previous convictions, who is remorseful and has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

[7] There is every indication that he will not re-offend, I act therefore under section 44(2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree 2009 and having convicted the accused, I adjourn these proceedings for two years on his written undertaking to comply with the following conditions:

1. He is to appear in Court on notice.
   
2. He is to be of good behaviour for two years.
   
3. He is to continue his education at T.P.A.F.
   
4. He is not to enter any amusement centre, game centre or pool/billiards centre for two years.
   
5. He is to remain living with his parents, but he can move with the leave of this Court.
   

[8] Should he abide by these conditions and if the Court receives no adverse reports during this period, then he will be discharged after two years, pursuant to section 44(6) of the said Sentencing Decree.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
17 February 2011