IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. HAC 51 of 2018

STATE

v

SAKIUSA VELOTURAGA
ASESELA TOKONIREWA

Counsel	:	Miss D. Rao for the State
			Miss K. Boseiwaqa (L.A.C.) for both Accused

Date of Plea	: 	5 April 2019
Date of Sentence	:  	11 April 2019

SENTENCE

1.	The accused were charged with the following three counts:

COUNT 1

	BURGLARY: Contrary to section 312(1) of the Crimes Act 2009

Particulars of Offence

	SAKIUSA VELOTURAGA between 2 and 3 July 2018, at Labasa 	in the Northern Division, entered the Colour Dragon Restaurant 	as a trespasser with intent to commit theft from the said 	restaurant. 
COUNT 2

	THEFT: Contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Act 2009

Particulars of Offence

	SAKIUSA VELOTURAGA between 2 and 3 July 2018 at Labasa 	in the Northern Division, dishonestly appropriated $800 cash, 	BH cigarettes approximately worth $225 and a black handbag 	worth $50 all to the total value of $1075 from Colour Dragon 	Restaurant belonging to Guo Huano with the intention of 	permanently depriving the said Guo Huano of the said property. 

COUNT 3

	RECEIVING: Contrary to section 306(1) and 3(a) of the Crimes 	Act 2009
Particulars of Offence

	ASESELA TOKONIREWA on 3 July 2018 at Labasa in the 	Northern Division, dishonestly received stolen cash in the 	amount of approximately $18 from SAKIUSA VELOTURAGA 	which belonged to Guo Huano knowing or believing the cash of 	approximately $18 to be stolen by the said SAKIUSA 	VELOTURAGA.

2.	They each entered pleas of guilty to those charges and having 	agreed a set of facts put to them, they were each found guilty 	and convicted of the relevant counts. 

	Facts

3.	Mr. Guo Huang owns a Chinese restaurant (“Colour Dragon”) in 	Labasa Town. On the 3rd July 2018 he discovered that the 	restaurant had been broken into during the night.

4.	The first accused intending to steal had entered the restaurant 	by removing louvre blades from a window and climbing into the 	restaurant through a window into the kitchen. In the restaurant 	the first accused, with intent to permanently deprive the said 	Mr. Guo took approximately $500 worth of coins, cigarettes 	worth $225 and a black handbag. 

5.	The following evening the first accused met the second accused 	and they spent the coins on food and alcohol. They were seen to 	be buying drinks with coins at a local night club. They drew 	attention to themselves and were identified by their unusual 	method of payment.

6.	The second accused had been told by the first accused that the 	coins were stolen property. 

7.	The maximum penalty for burglary simpliciter is a term of 	imprisonment of 13 years and the tariff range has been held to 	be between 12 and 36 months (Waqavanua HAA 13/2011). 

8.	The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years imprisonment and 	the tariff band for sentencing is 2 months to many years for 	theft in a fiduciary relationship. 

9.	A second offence of theft must attract a sentence of at least 9 	months. 

10.	The maximum penalty for receiving is ten years’ imprisonment. 	There has been no tariff set but a proper range should be 	sentences from suspended sentence to 3 years’ imprisonment. 	The value of the goods received and the circumstances of the 	receipt will be crucial factors in determining the sentence within 	that range.

11.	The first accused is 24 years old and single. He is a farmer. He 	has one previous conviction for theft and one previous for 	burglary, an offence for which he is still serving a term of 	imprisonment. 

12.	He has handed up a personal handwritten letter of mitigation 	expressing remorse and promising to lead a crime free life in the 	future. He longs to be free to support his 73 year old father.

13.	The second accused is 26 years old, married and also a 	farmer. He is the sole breadwinner for his grandfather and 	parents. He has a clear record. He spent one month on remand 	awaiting determination of this count.

14.	Both accused co-operated with the authorities and entered a 	plea of guilty at a very early stage of proceedings. 

	First Accused

15.	For this offence of burglary simpliciter, I take a starting point of 	2 years imprisonment. It was fortunate that there was no 	person inside the restaurant who could have been harmed. His 	previous record does not afford him any credit nor does it lend 	credence to his promise to never re-offend. 

16.	I am however sympathetic to his claim of remorse and his wish 	to help his family. And for those mitigating feature I reduce the 	sentence to 18 months imprisonment. For his plea of guilty I 	reduce the sentence by further 6 months meaning that he will 	serve a total of 12 months imprisonment for this burglary.

17.	The theft offence goes pari passu with the burglary and it not 	being his first theft sentence it must attract a term of at least 9 	months. I sentence him to 12 months for the theft to be served 	concurrently with the sentence for burglary.

	Second Accused

18.	The second accused is a first offender and it is very important 	that he doesn’t go to a prison environment with other hardened 	criminals. His offending is minimal spending $18 stolen money 	on alcohol. He  entered a plea  of guilty  at an early stage and 	co-operated with the Police.

19.	I sentence him to a term of 12 months imprisonment, 	suspended for 12 months.

20.	I order his counsel to explain to him the implications of a 	suspended sentence.

	Orders

1.	For the offence of burglary the first accused is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

2.	For the offence of theft he is sentenced to a concurrent term of 12 months imprisonment. 
3.	This concurrent sentence to be served concurrently with the term he is already serving.

4.	I make no order as to a minimum term for the first accused.

5.	For the offence of receiving, I sentence the second accused to a term of 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

		   P. K. Madigan
		Judge

At Labasa
11 April 2019