IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 15 OF 2022

BETWEEN		:	STATE

AND			:	NACANIELI TALEMAIMALEYA

Counsel	:	Ms E Thaggard for the State		
Mr P Gade for the Accused

Date of Hearing	:	01 April 2022
Date of Sentence	:	04 April 2022

SENTENCE
 
[1]	The Accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of receiving stolen property. 

[2]	The facts are as follows.

[3]	The Accused is a tertiary student at Maritime Academy in Suva. He is 25 years of age. In January 2022, he came to Nabouwalu Village for a visit. He is originally from that village. On 29 January 2022, he was drinking alcohol in the company of two others when they ran out of drinks. His companions disappeared for a while and when they returned they brought alcohol with them. When the Accused questioned them where they got the alcohol from they told him that they stole the alcohol.  The Accused continued to consume the alcohol knowing it was stolen. 

[4]	On the same day, a liquor shop was burgled and items stolen. The Accused was not involved in the burglary and theft.  But he admitted consuming the alcohol knowing or believing that it was stolen. 

[5]	Receiving stolen property is a summary offence. However, the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence is 10 years imprisonment. 

[6]	In Tabakau v The State [2003] FJHC 121; HAA0019J.2003S (18 July 2003) Shameem J endorsed a tariff of 1- 3 years imprisonment for the offence as follows:

Sentences for receiving stolen property in Fiji appear to range from 12 months imprisonment (where the value of the property is comparatively low) to 3 years imprisonment in cases where the property stolen has a high value, and there is an element of planning.

[7]	In State v Talemaibau [2011] FJHC 733; HAC130.2010 (18 October 2011) the offender pleaded guilty to receiving and consuming stolen alcohol. He was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years.  In that case the offender had spent 11 months in custody on remand before pleading guilty to the charge. 

[8]	In State v Rigamoto [2018] FJHC 513; HAC158.2018 (18 June 2018) two first time young offenders were sentenced 12 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years after pleading guilty to receiving stolen property valued at $40.00. 

[9]	In Nariva v The State [2006] FJHC 6; HAA0148J.2005S (9 February 2006), Shameem J observed: 

The courts must always make every effort to keep young first offenders out of prison. Prisons do not always rehabilitate the young offender. Non-custodial measures should be carefully explored first to assess whether the offender would acquire accountability and a sense of responsibility from such measures in preference to imprisonment.

[10]	In the present case, the Accused is a young and a first time offender. He has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, which indicates he is genuinely remorseful. There are no aggravating factors present.

[11]	The Accused had already served 2 months in custody on remand. The facts are special. The Accused made a poor judgment to consume alcohol knowing it was stolen. He is a tertiary student and that he would acquire accountability and a sense of responsibility if he is given a second chance.  

[12]	The Accused is discharged without conviction. 

. …………………………………….
							Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar

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