IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 104 OF 2021

STATE

V

NETANI SERU

Counsel: Mr N Sharma for the State
Ms R Nabainivalu for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 6 January 2022
Date of Sentence: 7 January 2022

SENTENCE

[1]	The Accused has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery. 

[2]	The victim is a 24 year old female. She worked as a finance clerk at United Blind Person for Fiji. On 31 March 2021 at about 8.30 pm, the victim was returning home from work after getting off a bus at Caubati where she lived. As she was walking along the road, the Accused in the company of another grabbed her laptop bag and ran away through a track used as a shortcut to Caubati.  The bag had a laptop and a mobile phone, to a total value of $5300.00.  

[3]	The Accused was arrested and interviewed under caution. He made full admissions to the police. The laptop was recovered from the person it was sold to with the information provided by the Accused. 

[4]	The mitigating factors are that the Accused is a first time and a young offender. He is 19 years of age and a High School student. He is currently enrolled to complete his studies. He entered an early guilty plea and has expressed remorse. He has saved the court’s time and resources by pleading guilty. Through his cooperation the police recovered the stolen laptop. 

[5]	The offence is objectively serious.  The statutory aggravation is that the offence was committed in the company of another. The maximum sentence prescribed for the offence is 20 years imprisonment.  

[6]	The nature of the offence is ‘street mugging’. Offences of this nature is prevalent in our community. Deterrence is the main purpose of sentence when an offence is prevalent. 

[7]	In Raqauqau v State [2008] FJCA 34; AAU0100.2007 (4 August 2008) the Court of Appeal has provided the following guidelines for street mugging at [12]:

1.	The sentencing bracket was 18 months or 5 years, but the upper limit of 5 years might not be appropriate ‘if the offences are committed by an offender who has a number of previous convictions and if there is a substantial degree of violence, or if there is a particularly large number of offences committed’.
2.	An offence would be more serious if the victim was vulnerable because of age (whether elderly or young), or if it had been carried out by a group of offenders.
3.	The fact that offences of this nature were prevalent was also to be treated as an aggravating feature.

[8]	It is clear from the above guidelines that the sentencing court is not bound by the tariff of 18 months imprisonment to 5 years imprisonment for street mugging offences.  The guidelines suggest that sentences may be increased beyond 5 years imprisonment ‘if the offences are committed by an offender who has a number of previous convictions and if there is a substantial degree of violence, or if there is a particularly large number of offences committed’. 
[9]	In this case the violence used was minimum. It was a case of snatch and run. I pitch the Accused’s criminality at the lower end of the tariff. 

[10]	Apart from the compelling mitigating factors, the Accused is a High School student who is genuinely remorseful and wishes to complete his studies. He was remanded in custody in this case for 6 months and 2 weeks before he was released on bail.  The remand period serves as a deterrence for the Accused.

[11]	After taking all these matters into account, the Accused is convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.

[12]	The recovered stolen property is restored to the owner. 

. …………………………………….
Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Legal Aid Commission for the Accused