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

State v Tuivanuavou [2011] FJHC 718; HAC150.2011 (9 November 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 150 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

RAVUAMA TUIVANUAVOU

Mr S. Babitu for the State
Accused in Person

Date of Hearing: 7th November, 2011
Date of Sentence: 9th November, 2011

SENTENCE
[Arson]

[1] In this Court, the accused has entered pleas of guilty to the following counts:

FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence (a)

CRIMINAL TRESPASS: Contrary to Section 387 (1)(a) of the Crimes Decree No.44 2009.

Particulars of Offence (b)

RAVUAMA TUIVANUAVOU with another, on the 1st of July 2011 at Cavucavu, Nalawa, Rakiraki in the Western Division, entered into the property in the possession of JOSUA MANAKILAGI with the intention to assault the said JOSUA MANAKILAGI.

SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence (a)

ASSAULT CAUSING ACTUAL BODILY HARM: Contrary to Section 275 of the Crime Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence (b)

RAVUAMA TUIVANUAVOU with another, on the 1st day of July 2011 at Cavucavu, Nalawa, Rakiraki in the Western Division unlawfully assaulted JOSUA MANAKILAGI and thereby occasioned actual bodily harm.

THIRD COUNT
Statement of Offence (a)

ARSON: Contrary to Section 362 (a) of the Crime Decree No. 44 of 2009.

RAVUAMA TUIVANUAVOU with another, on the 1st of July 2011 at Cavucavu, Nalawa, Rakiraki in the Western Division willfully and unlawfully set fire to a dwelling house belonging to JOSUA MANAKILAGI.

[2] After agreeing a set of facts put to him he was convicted of Counts One and Three and convicted with regard to Count Two of the lesser charge of Common Assault; that offence being far more appropriate to the admitted facts than the offence charged.

[3] The facts admitted by the accused are these:

[i] On the 1st of July 2011 between 8.00pm and 10.00pm at Cavucavu Settlement, Mataso, Ra in the Western Division, the 1st accused Ravuama Tuivanuavou and another accused proceeded to the house belonging to Josua Manakilagi.

[ii] On the above date the complainant was sleeping at his home when the 1st accused forcefully opened the door of the complainants' house and walked towards the bed of the complainant. He woke the complainant up held him by the neck and started punching him.

[iii] The complainant struggled and fled his house and about 50 meters away he then turned back and saw that his house was engulfed with fire. Before this the complainant fled he had smelt premix fuel inside his house. The complainant was also medically examined and notes indicated that he had tenderness on his neck and chest.

[iv] At the time the complainant fled his house, the accused poured premix fuel inside the hose and lit it with a lighter.

[v] Damages to the house were valued at $1,210.00.

[vi] Upon a police investigation, the accused person was arrested and interviewed under caution and he admitted the offence.

[4] The accused tells me that he is 23 and has never offended before in Fiji. He is remorseful and begs for forgiveness. As a background to the offence he tells me that he "caught the victim with my sister" and was therefore severely provoked. He tells me that he and the victim are now reconciled.

[5] The most serious offence in this scenario is arson and that therefore will be the foundation of the ultimate sentence. Arson has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In Lagi HAA004/2004 Shameem J held that the tariff for arson be between 2 and 4 years. She later explained this in Tuitokava HAA67/2005 when she said:

"The tariff is a sentence of 2 to 4 years. Sentences of two years have been given where there is no danger to human life, and sentences of four years imprisonment were given when the house was occupied and there was reckless disregard for human life".

[6] It is an aggravating feature that the house of the victim was completely destroyed, but fortunately the victim had already fled the scene. It is unclear if the accused had the intention to light fire whether the accused fled or not. The bad grammar of the relevant fact makes the point ambiguous. I understand how the accused must have taken umbrage at his perceived assault on the honour of his sister, but such a state of affairs does not entitle a person to take matters upon himself to redress. I take as a starting point a term of imprisonment of three years. For his early plea of guilty he will receive a discount of one year bringing the sentence down to two years. For his clean record, relatively young age, and remorse he will receive a further discount of six months making the total sentence for the arson to be one of 18 months imprisonment.

[7] The maximum penalties for criminal trespass and for common assault are both 12 months imprisonment. I sentence the accused to 6 months for the trespass and four months for the assault.

[8] All terms are to be served concurrently, meaning that the accused will serve a total term of imprisonment of eighteen months. I decline to set a minimum term before he is eligible for parole.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
9th November, 2011