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

  Download original PDF

State v Cama - Sentence [2019] FJHC 619; HAC113.2019 (19 June 2019)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA

CASE NO: HAC. 113 of 2019

[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

STATE

V

1. NATUSA ROKOSEBE CAMA
2. KULINIO ROKOVERENI
   

Counsel : Mr. E. Samisoni for State
Ms. T. Kean for Accused
Date of Sentence : 19 June 2019

SENTENCE

1. Natusa Rokosebe Cama and Kulinio Rokovereni, you have pleaded guilty to the charges produced below and were convicted as charged accordingly;

FIRST COUNT

Statement of Offence

AGGRAVATED BURGLARY: contrary to section 313 (1)(a) of the Crimes Act 2009.

Particulars of Offence

NATUSA ROKOSEBA CAMA and KULINIO ROKOVERENI, on the 19^th day of March, 2019 at Suva in the Central Division, in the company of each other, entered as trespassers into the dwelling house of WOMAN SERGEANT 3124 TRISA NAKAIWALU, with the intent to commit theft.

SECOND COUNT

Statement of Offence

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

Particulars of Offence

NATUSA ROKOSEBA CAMA and KULINIO ROKOVERENI, on the 19^th day of March, 2019 at Suva in the Central Division, in the company of each other, dishonestly appropriated (stole) 1 x NEC brand laptop, 1 x white Samsung J1 mobile phone and a military black bag the property of WOMAN SERGEANT 3124 TRISA NAKAIWALU with the intention of permanently depriving WOMAN SERGEANT 3124 TRISA NAKAIWALU of the said property.

2. You have admitted the following summary of facts;

Accuseds: (A1) Natusa Rokoseba Cama, 18 years old of Nakasi.

(A2) Kulinio Rokovereni, 18 years old, farmer of Logani, Bau, Tailevu. (Birth Certificate annexed as PE1).

The Complainants:

(PW1) Woman Sergeant 3124 Trisa Nakaiwalu, 38 years old of Nasese Police barracks, Suva.

(PW2) PC 4397 John, 42 years old of Totogo Police Station.

On 18^th March, 2019, A1 and A2 were in Nausori playing billiard with two others when they decided to travel to Suva. They left Nausori at around 7pm and reached Suva at around 7.30pm. A1, A2 and two others then went to Albert Park and stayed there till around 1am on 19 March, 2019. The four of them then walked to Domain then back to the sea wall near Nasese. When they reached the Nasese Police Barracks, A1 and A2 planned to break into one of the barracks there and steal in order to pay for their fare back home. A1 and A2 had gone to the barrack belonging to PW1 – Quarters 69A. A1 entered PW1’s barrack through a window whilst A2 stood guard outside. A1 stole 1 x NEC brand laptop, 1 x white Samsung J1 mobile phone and a black military bag from PW1’s barrack and then passed the items to A2 who was waiting outside. A1, A2 and two others then walked towards Suva Grammar School following the sea wall and then they walked up through Vuya Road near the old Parliament House to crosscut back through Suva.

PW2 PC 4397 John of Totogo Police station stated that on 19 March, 2019 at around 4.30am, he and his team were patrolling along Vuya Road when they came across four itaukei boys which included A1 and A2 near the old Parliament House. He and his team decided to stop and question them. PW2 said he searched the four boys and found a black bag in their possession containing 1 x NEC laptop and 1 x J1 white Samsung mobile phone. PW2 said he and his team then escorted the four itaukei boys back to Totogo Police Station where they discovered that the items that they found on them did not belong to them.

A Search List confirming the said items were found on A1, A2 and two others was entered and signed by PW2 and counter-signed by both A1 and A2. Two of the signatures on the bottom left corner of the Search List matches the signatures of both A1 and A2. (Search List annexed as PE2).

A1 was interviewed under caution on 19 March, 2019 at Totogo Police Station where he admitted at Q&A’s 68-78 and Q&A’s 88-127 where he admitted to entering into PW1’s barrack through an opened window whilst A2 stood outside the same window as a guard. A1 stated that he stole the items belonging to PW1 in order to get his fare back home as he only had 15 cents with him. He then passed the said items to A2 who was waiting outside before they exited the Nasese Police Barracks. A1 voluntarily took part in a scene reconstruction during his caution interview. (Record of Interview of A1 annexed as PE3).

A2 was also interviewed under caution on 19 March, 2019 at the Totogo Police Station where he admitted at Q&A’s 32-43 to being part of a plan to steal from the Nasese Police Barracks in order to pay their fare. He admitted that A1 entered the barrack of PW1 whilst he waited outside. He then saw A1 exit PW1’s house carrying a bag containing a laptop, mobile phone and a charger. A2 further stated that he carried the same bag as they walked towards Suva Grammar School. (Record of Interview of A2 annexed as PE4 – itaukei and English versions).

On the same date PW1 stated that she was at home when she received a call from the Totogo Police Station informing her that her mobile phone and laptop had been recovered from a group of itaukei males. PW1 then proceeded to the Totogo Police Station where she identified the stolen items as belonging to her.

A1 and A2 were then charged with one count each of Aggravated Burglary and Theft.

On 13 May, 2019 A2 pleaded guilty to both offences as charged in the presence of his counsel.

On 3 June, 2019 A1 pleaded guilty to both offences as charged in the presence of his counsel.

3. As I have explained in State v Prasad [2017] FJHC 761; HAC254.2016 (12 October 2017) and State v Naulu [201HC 548 (25 June 2018), 18), based on the tariff endorsed by the Supreme Court for the offence of aggravated robbery in the case >Wise v State [2015] FJSC 7, the tariff for the offence of aggravated burglary wary which carries a maximum penalty of 17 years imprisonment should be an imprisonment term within the range of 6 years to 14 years.
   
4. The offence of theft contrary to section 291 of the Crimes Act carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. In the case of Waqa v State [HAA 17 of 2015], this court held that the tariff for the offence of theft should be 4 months to 3 years imprisonment.
   
5. The offences you are convicted of are founded on the same facts. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 17 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act, I consider it appropriate to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment against you for the two offences you have committed.
   
6. Section 17 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009 (“Sentencing and Penalties Act”) reads thus;

“If an offender is convicted of more than one offence founded on the same facts, or which form a series of offences of the same or a similar character, the court may impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment in respect of those offences that does not exceed the total effective period of imprisonment that could be imposed if the court had imposed a separate term of imprisonment for each of them.”

7. Natusa Rokosebe Cama, you are 18 years old. Your parents are separated. You live with your mother and 3 younger siblings. Prior to being arrested for this matter you were a casual employee at a yard in Nakasi.
   
8. Kulinio Rokovereni, you are also 18 years old and you are a subsistence farmer.
   
9. According to the summary of facts, both of you claim that you decided to commit the offences to find money for your bus fare. However, the value of items stolen does not seem to support that position. There was premeditation and this is an aggravating factor common to both of you.
   
10. In your mitigation, apart from the fact that you have entered an early guilty plea, it is submitted that;
    1. You are young first offenders;
    2. You are remorseful;
    100. There has been a full recovery of the stolen property; and
    4. You have cooperated with the police.
       
11. The interests of justice demand a deterrent punishment to be given in this type of cases. Undue leniency when it comes to punishing offenders who commit burglary or aggravated burglary in my view tend to contribute for burglary to remain as the most prevalent offence in Fiji and therefore erodes the public confidence in the rule of law.
    
12. However, in this case I am mindful that both of you turned 18 at the beginning of this year. Natusa Rokosebe Cama turned 18 in February and Kulinio Rokovereni turned 18 in January. The offences were committed in March. Given your age, the fact that you are first offenders and the nature of offending, I would regard rehabilitation as the main purpose of sentencing you.
    
13. I would select 06 years as the starting point of your aggregate sentence. I would add 01 year in view of the aforementioned aggravating factor and I would deduct 03 years in view of the above mitigating factors. Now your sentence is an imprisonment term of 04 years.
    
14. In view of your early guilty plea, I would grant each one of you a discount of one-third. Accordingly, the final sentence is an imprisonment term of 02 years and 08 months.
    
15. I would fix your non-parole period at 18 months.
    
16. It is submitted that you have been in custody in view of this matter since 19/03/19. Accordingly, the two of you have spent 03 months in custody. The time you have spent in custody shall be regarded as a period of imprisonment already served by you in terms of section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act.
    
17. Section 24 of the Sentencing and the Penalties Decree reads thus;

“If an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, any period of time during which the offender was held in custody prior to the trial of the matter or matters shall, unless a court otherwise orders, be regarded by the court as a period of imprisonment already served by the offender.”

18. In the result, you are sentenced to an imprisonment term of 02 years and 08 months with a non-parole period of 18 months. Given the period you have spent in custody, the time remaining to be served is as follows;
    

Head sentence – 02 years and 05 months

Non-parole period –15 months

19. In order to promote your rehabilitation, I have decided to suspend the remaining period of your sentence for a period of 03 years.
    
20. The court clerk will explain you the effects of a suspended sentence.
    
21. Accordingly, you will be released today. Each of you are thoroughly warned and are hereby advised to hereafter abide by the laws of this country and lead a good life.
    
22. Thirty (30) days to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
    

Vinsent S. Perera
JUDGE

Solicitors;

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Legal Aid Commission for both Accused