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

State v Gade [2010] FJMC 135; HAC123.2010 (15 November 2010)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF SUVA

Criminal Case HAC No: - 123/2010

STATE

V

ESEROMA GADE

For Prosecution: - Ms. Koto. L.
Accused: - In person

SENTENCE

1. You ESEROMA GADE, was convicted by this court, for the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery', which is punishable under Section 311 (1) (a) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009, entailed a punishment up to 20 years of imprisonment.
   
2. The conviction was entered consequent upon your "pleas of guilty' to the charge on 6th of September 2010. I am satisfied that you fully comprehended the legal effects and that your plea was voluntary and free from influence.
   
3. Summary of facts, as admitted by you before the court, revealed that the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery' was committed on one Shiu Ram on 17th day of April in the night together with three others.
   
4. Furthermore, the summery of facts revealed, that on 16th of April 2010, the said Mr. Shiu Ram went off to sleep at house after securely locked the canteen which is built next to his house. In the night he heard a sound inside his canteen. When he went into the canteen to look for the sound, he found three mask men inside the canteen armed with iron rods. They hit him with the iron rod and demanded money. They stole cash of $ 200, and assorted jewelleries worth of $340. Mr. Shiu Ram chased the fleeing mask men, and noticed you were guarding outside the canteen. Mr. Shiu Ram received injuries according to the Medical Officer's Report.
   
5. The learned, State Counsel, submitted in her sentencing submission that the case involved a home invasion type of robbery. The learned state counsel further suggested in her submission the aggravating factors are that the accused person and others were armed with iron bar, the total amount of cash and assorted jewelleries stolen amounts to $ 640, the complainant struggled with the accused persons and received 3 knife wounds to the head, and it was a planed gang robbery. The learned state counsel drew my attention that the tariff as set out in " State v Vilikesa Tilalevu and Savenaca Mataki ( 2010) FJHC 258, HAC081.2010(20 July 2010)) for the offence of aggravated robbery is 8-14 years imprisonment.
   
6. You and your father made a plea in mitigation on behalf of you. Your father submitted that you are a newly married person and got one child. Further he stated that he is a retired person and need your help. You seek forgiveness from the family of the complainant, prosecution and the court for your criminal act. Moreover you admitted that you were drunk and followed wrong crowd. You are ready to pay back for the stolen item as restitution but so far it was not confirmed to the court.
   
7. At this point I direct myself to consider appropriate sentences on you upon considering the general principle of sentencing under Section 15 (3) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and objective of sentencing under section 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
   
8. The offences involving in home invasion and violence robberies are prevalent crime in the society and it's made the entire country locked up in their own prison with buglers bars and windows around their homes. The purpose of sentencing you for the offence of aggravated robbery in pursuant to section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree to punish offenders to an extent and in a manner which is just in all the circumstance, to protect the community from offenders in this nature, to deter offenders or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar nature, more importantly the to signify that the court and the community denounce the commission of such offences.
   
9. Justice Goundar in State vs Mataiasi Bulivou Susu [2010] F26; HAC054.2010; HA0; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010) found that organized gang robberies attract the sentence of 8-14 year imprisonment. Je Shameem in Seseu v State 2003, FJHC 224, HA4, HAM0043J, 2003S, 10 December 2003) found that the tariff for robbery with violence is 4-7 years. Justice Shameem in Sakiusa Basa vs. the State (Criminal Appeal AAU 25), held that "'Sentences for robberies involving firearms should range from six to eight years. A lowere of to seven years is appropriate where firearms are are not used and the premises are banks, nks, or shops, post offices or service stations. However, the sentence may be higher where the victim or victims are particularly vulnerable due to age, infirmity, disability or where children are involved. Similarly where injuries are caused in the course of the robbery, a higher sentence will be justified. The value of the property stolen, evidence of planning or premeditation, multiple offences and previous convictions for similar offences should be considered aggravating features. The sentence may be reduced where the offender has no previous convictions, has pleaded guilty and has expressed remorse. This list of aggravating and mitigating features is by no means exhaustive. Furthermore, the sentence will always be adjusted up or down, depending on the facts of the particular case'
   
10. Justice Goundar in Susu's case&#160ra),pra), has succinctly summarized the guiding principles in sentencing in cases involving robbery. They are:' From these authorities, the following principles emerge. 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.
    

The seriousness of an offence of robbery is mitigated by factors such as a timely guilty plea, clear evidence of remorse, ready co-operation with the police, response to previous sentences, personal circumstances of the offender, first offence of violence, voluntary return of property taken, playing a minor part, and lack of planning involved.