IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC012 of 2012

STATE

v.

TEVITA RAIWALUI BULUMAKAU
& MELI SESARA ROKOBIU

Counsel: Mr. S. Vodokisolomone State
Ms M. Lemaki for both accused

Date of Hearing: 22 February 2013
Date of Sentence: 25 February 2013

SENTENCE

[1]	Tevita Bulumakau and Meli Rokobiu are before the Court for sentencing after pleading guilty to one count of aggravated robbery, contrary to section 311(1)(a) of the Crimes Decree. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment.

[2]	The facts are that on 30 January 2012 at around 2.30am, a group of armed men forced their way into the victim's home in Wainikoro, Labasa. The intruders threatened the victim, his wife and daughter, and made their way out with cash and jewellery to a total value of $31,000.00. The intruders were masked and carried knives and rods. When the victim tried to scare off the intruders by firing a shot using his gun, the intruders placed a knife to his daughter's neck to get him to surrender the gun. When the victim surrendered his weapon the intruders gagged and left him on the floor. Tevita Bulumakau and Meli Rokobiu were among the intruders that robbed the victim. Both offenders confessed to the robbery after they were arrested and interviewed under caution. The stolen properties were recovered. 

[3]	Tevita Bulumakau is 49 years old. Most of his adult life, he spent in prison. He has 46 previous convictions, mostly for violent offences such as robbery, assault and rape. I disregard the spent convictions. In 2005 he was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment for rape. In 2008 he was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment for act with intent to cause grievous harm, to serve concurrently with the rape sentence. It appears that he re-offended shortly after being released from prison. I declare him a habitual offender and for the purpose of sentence I bear in mind that the community must be protected from him.

[4]	Meli Rokobiu is 39 years old and married with two young children. He comes from a decent family background. At the time of the offending he was unemployed. He lost his employment when on 16 June 2011 he was sentenced to a custodial sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. While on bail in this case, he managed to find employment as an insurance agent at BSP Life(Fiji) Limited. His manager has provided a written character reference for him. The principal education officer has provided an academic and character reference for Meli Rokobui when he was a student at Ratu Kadavulevu School. His spouse has provided a character reference stating he is a responsible husband and father. 

[5]	In sentencing the offenders, I bear in mind the guideline cases such as State v. Basa Criminal Appeal No: AAU0024 of 2005, Wainiqolo v. The State AAU0027.2006 and State v. Rokonabete & Ors. HAC118.2007. These cases were considered under the Penal Code when the maximum penalty for robbery with violence was life imprisonment and the tariff for gang armed robbery was 8 to 14 years imprisonment. Under the Crimes Decree the maximum is 20 years imprisonment. In State v Manoa [2010] FJHC 409; HAC061.2010(6 August 2010), this Court stated that although the maximum sentence under the Decree has been reduced to 20 years imprisonment, the tariff of 8 to 14 years imprisonment established under the old law can continue to apply under the new law for two reasons. Firstly, the established tariff of 8 to 14 years under the old law falls below the maximum sentence of 20 years. Secondly, under the Decree, aggravated robbery is made an indictable offence, triable only in the High Court, which means the intention is to continue to treat the offence seriously.

[6]	For both offenders I pick a common starting point of 10 years imprisonment. 

[7]	Fortunately, the victim and his family were not physically harmed. However, the victim was robbed at night time in the security of his own home situated in a rural community. The use of weapon and gagging of the victim further aggravated the offending. It must have been a frightening experience for the victim and his family. The Court must denounce offences of this nature and give regard to the need for special and general deterrence when punishing the offenders. To reflect these factors, I increase the sentence to 13 years imprisonment.

[8]	The mitigating factors for Tevita Bulumakau are his early guilty plea and recovery of stolen property. I reduce the sentence to 10 years to reflect these factors. Tevita Bulumakau has been in custody on remand since 13 February 2012. I further reduce the sentence by 1 ½ years to reflect the remand period. Tevita Bulumakau is sentenced to 8 ½ years imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 7 years for Tevita Bulumakau.

[9]	The mitigating factors for Meli Rokobui are his early guilty plea, his family circumstances, recovery of stolen property and his genuine effort to rehabilitate himself. His remand period is 3 months. To reflect these factors, I reduce his sentence to 7 years imprisonment. The prospect for rehabilitation for Meli Rokobui is real and high. Unlike Tevita Bulumakau, Meli Rokobui is not a habitual offender. I decline to fix a non-parole period Meli Rokobui.

[10]	In summary the sentences are:

Tevita Bulumakau – 8 ½ years imprisonment; non-parole 7 years.
Meli Rokobui – 7 years imprisonment. 

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Labasa
25th February 2013

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Labasa for State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission, Labasa for both accused