IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Criminal Case No 605/08

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

SAULA LALAGAVESI

SENTENCE

1.	You, Saula Lalagavesi are to be sentenced upon being convicted for the charge of robbery with violence contrary to Section 293(1)(b) of the Penal Code.

2.	The maximum sentence for this offence is imprisonment for life.

3.	The tariff for this offence now stands as 7 to 10 years according to the judgement, Manoa Baleinakeba V The State Criminal Appeal No HAA 008 of 2010. In this case Justice Paul K. Madigan said that;

"A tariff of 4 to 8 years may have at one time been appropriate tariff, but it is certainly no longer. In adopting the dicta of the Fiji Court of Appeal in Basa's case CA AAU24 OF 2005 The Fiji Courts are now following the English line of cases for robbery with violence and not the more lenient New Zealand authorities. In the High Court, the tariff is more within the range of 10 to 15 years, and given the jurisdictional restraints of the Magistrates Court, I would venture that the proper tariff there now should be 7 to 10 years."

4.	In this present case the co accused in this case pleaded guilty on the 08th May 2010 and he was sentenced on the 25th May 2010. In that sentence the court picked the starting point as 4 years, since the tariff was then between 4 years to 8 years. However now the court is compelled to pick a starting point within 7 to 10 years according to the judgement in Manoa Baleinakeba V The State which was delivered on the 16th June 2010. 

5.	Thus I pick my starting point as 7 years.

6.	It was revealed that on the 4th August 2008 you with another robbed a van driver. You were wearing a mask when you committed the robbery. But you were identified by a witness, who was used by you and the other to bring a van driver in the pretext of going for a hire. The complainant said that he was assaulted by you. The incident took place near a church and when a pastor came out from the church you and the other accused fled the scene. A bunch of keys and a mobile phone were stolen and they were not recovered.

7.	Justice Gounder in State V Rokonabete 2008 FJHC 226 stated that;

"The dominant factor in assessing seriousness for any types of robbery is the degree of force used or threatened. The degree of injury to the victim or the nature of and duration of threats are also relevant in assessing the seriousness of an offence of robbery with violence. If a weapon is involved in the use or threat of force that will always be an important aggravating feature. Group offending will aggravate an offence because the level of intimidation and fear caused to the victim will be greater. It may also indicate planning and gang activity. Being the ringleader in a group is an aggravating factor. If the victims are vulnerable, such as elderly people and persons providing public transport, then that will be an aggravating factor. Other aggravating factors may include the value of items taken and the fact that an offence was committed whilst the offender was on bail."

8.	I have observed the following aggravating factors in this case.

a)	this is a well planned and an organized crime
b)	you committed this offence with another person
c)	you covered your face to avoid identification
d)	personal violence was used on the complainant
e)	you committed this offence on a driver of a public transport
f)	the stolen items were not recovered

9.	When the courts impose sentences the following purposes have to be borne in mind according to Section 4 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree;

a)	to punish offenders to an extent and in manner which is just in all the circumstances
b)	to protect the community from offenders
c)	to deter offenders or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar nature
d)	to establish conditions so that rehabilitation of offenders may be promoted or facilitated
e)	to signify that the court and the community denounce the commission of such offences

10.	For the aggravating circumstances I enhance the sentence by 12 months. 

11.	You were given a chance to mitigate. But you opted not to say anything in mitigation. You are not a stranger to this system. You have 41 previous convictions and you admitted 38 of them. Your conduct shows that you are not remorseful of your actions.

12.	As per Winter j in Viliame Cavuilagi –v- State [2004] HAA031/04 Judgment of 14 April, 2004; "Repetitive, recidivist offending must inevitably lead to longer sentences of imprisonment unless the offender can demonstrate special circumstances that motivate the court to sentence otherwise. This principle meets three of society's needs. Firstly it might act as a deterrent to the offender and others who fall into a pattern of semi-professional crime to support themselves. Second society is entitled to sideline or warehouse repeat offenders out of the community for longer periods of time so that at least during the term of incarceration they cannot wreck havoc on the lives of law abiding citizens. Thirdly offenders deserve punishment that fits the circumstances of the crime."

13.	Yet I decide to reduce the sentence by 6 months for the following mitigatory factors;

a)	No weapons were used
b)	The items which were stolen are of less value.

14.	Accordingly I impose 7 years and 6 months imprisonment on you.

15.	It appears you have been in remand since July 2009. Having considered the time you were in custody, I order that 15 months shall be deducted from the sentence and that 15 months shall be regarded as a period of imprisonment already served by you. Further I order that this sentence should run concurrent to any other sentences served by you presently.

16.	You should serve a total term of six years and three months.

17.	The court is mindful of the significance of motivating offenders to rehabilitate themselves. Thus the court has to leave some room for the offenders to benefit from genuine and effective rehabilitation and correction. Therefore I order that you are eligible for parole after 60 months.

28 days to appeal.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate
Lautoka

19.10.2010