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

State v Taqainakoro [2013] FJHC 23; HAC100.2012 (30 January 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC100 of 2012

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

TIMOCI TAQAINAKORO

Counsel : Ms M. Fong for State
Mr. D. Toganivalu for Accused

Date of Hearing : 21 & 23 January 2013
Date of Sentence : 30 January 2013

SENTENCE

[1] On the 21st day of January 2013 in this Court the accused entered a plea of guilty to two counts of arson. Having admitted a set of facts put to him on the 23rd January 2013, he was found guilty and convicted of the two counts.

[2] The counts read:

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

ARSON: Contrary to Section 362(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.

Particulars of Offence

TIMOCI TAQAINAKORO on the 29th day of October 2011, at Nasinu in the Southern Division willfully and unlawfully set fire to a dwelling house belonging to Timoci Taqainakoro and Iliana Dinati of Narere Stage One, Nasinu.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

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

Particulars of Offence

TIMOCI TAQAINAKORO on the 29th day of October 2011, at Nasinu in the Southern Division, willfully and unlawfully set fire to a dwelling house belonging to Dinesh Prasad f/n Sharda Prasad of Narere Stage One, Nasinu.

[3] The facts of the case are that the accused and his wife, Iliana lived in an open lean-to house in Muanikoso, Narere at the time of the offence. At about 8am, in the morning of 29 October 2011, Iliana awoke to shouting. On going outside she found her husband (the accused) and his brother shouting and arguing. They appeared to be drunk and the accused was complaining about his suspicions that Iliana was having an affair with a soldier. Iliana walked away and the accused went inside the house. She soon saw the accused walk out of the house and the house catching fire with smoke and flames. The neighbour's house was only 500 metres away from the accused's house. The lady neighbour saw the accused staggering and throwing beer bottles at the windows and saw the accused's brother trying to restrain him. He freed himself and ran into the house. She soon saw smoke and then the house catching fire. The neighbour's house being so close, it too caught alight and the bedroom wall, the bed, mattress and mosquito net were burnt.

[4] The Fire Authority personnel attended the scene of the fire and reported that the cause of the fire was arson and the seat of the fire was the bedroom.

[5] In a cautioned interview with the Police, the accused admitted that he was drunk but remembered that he had set pillows alight with a gas lighter. He was frustrated after hearing rumours of his wife's affairs.

[6] The accused is 29 years old and he and his wife have no children. He has received technical training in Building and worked for some years as a carpenter, however is presently unemployed.

[7] He claims to have been angered after hearing that his wife had had male visitors to the matrimonial home when he was away working in Vanua Levu. In his rage, flamed by alcohol, he thought that burning their bed would rid the home of evil influences. Unfortunately the fire got quickly out of control and did far more damage to his house as well as to the neighbour's than he had intended.

[8] He has paid cash to the neighbour being the cost of repair to his home and he is extremely remorseful for what he has done.

[9] The accused has two previous convictions, one in 2005 for damaging property and one in 2009 for larceny in a dwelling place.

[10] The maximum penalty for arson is life imprisonment and is therefore an offence to be regarded as most serious. Very often the offence is part and parcel of insurance fraud but that is clearly not the case with this offending. In the cases of Lagi HAA4/2004 and Tuitokova HAA67/2005, Shameem J set the tariff band to be between 2 and 4 years imprisonment – the higher penalty to be reserved for cases where it was known or the accused was reckless as to whether the building being burnt was inhabited.

[11] In the present case the accused has destroyed his own home through his own stupidity thereby incurring the cost and inconvenience of providing accommodation anew for him and his wife. The real wrongdoing is the burning of his neighbour's house through his recklessness.

[12] I take the minimum starting point for arson which is two years. For his mitigatory features, including remorse, I deduct six months resulting in a sentence of eighteen months. I am persuaded that the circumstances of this case are exceptional in that –

1. there is no victim of the crime apart from him and his wife;
2. there was no wilfullness to harm or damage;
3. he is forced to rebuild the matrimonial home;
4. he has reimbursed the neighbour for the damage caused;
5. he is sincerely remorseful.
   

[13] In those circumstances, I suspend the eighteen month term of imprisonment for a term of two years.

[14] Suspension explained.

Paul K. Madigan
JUDGE

At Suva
30 January 2013