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

State v Votea [2010] FJMC 195; HAC090.2011 (16 June 2010)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF SUVA

Criminal Case HAC No: - 090/2011

STATE

V

ONISIMO TAUCILAGI VOTEA,
MICHAEL JONES QORINIASI,

For Prosecution: - Mr. Fotofili L,
1st, 2nd, Accused Persons: - In persons

SENTENCE

1. You ONISIMO TAUCILAGI VOTEA, MICHAEL JONES QORINIASI, were 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' on 20th of Ap011. I am satisfied that both of you fully comprehended thed the legal effects and that your pleas were voluntary and free from influence.
   
3. Summary of facts, as admitted by both of you before the court, revealed that the offence of 'Aggravated Robbery' was committed on Mr. Arunesh Naidu on 21st day of March 2011 at Laucala bay road, Suva.
   
4. Further, the summery of facts revealed, both of you approached the victim and trackled him down and tried to remove the Puma canvas he was wearing when he was walking home along Laucala Bay Road from the University of South Pacific. You punched the victim when he tried to resist you. You stole the puma canvas valued at $120, and LG mobile phone valued at $80.
   
5. The learned State counsel submitted in his sentencing submission that some of the notable aggravating features of your offending are
   
   1. It was committed in a group,
      
   2. It was in a public place,
      
   3. The victim suffer minor injuries as a result but nothing overly serious,
      
6. The learned state counsel further submitted that following facts could be consider as mitigating factors for your favor,
   
   1. Cooperation with the police,
      
   2. All properties stolen except of the mobile phone and the Vodafone flash net were recovered,
      
   3. Early guilty plea,
      
   4. Young age,
      
   5. Remorse,
      
   6. First offenders,
      
   7. Time in remand,
      
7. In his sentencing submission the learned counsel brought to my attention several judicial dictums on various sentencing options on first young offenders and the tariff for the offence of Aggravate Robbery.
   
8. The 1st and the 2nd accused person tendered their mitigation submission with the assistance of the Legal Aid Commission.
   
9. This is a case involved a gang robbery which was committed at a public place, in a joint enterprise. Both you approached the victim when he was on his way back to home from the University and tackled him down and stole the items mentioned in summery of facts.
   
10. The offence of Aggravated robbery is becoming a serious problem and warranted a great judicial intervention with responsibility. The increasing crime rate in this nature has made the society to a vulnerable and insecure place where even an ordinary citizen is not allow moving freely on the public street. Any person who is stepping into a public place has to think twice of his own safety before he does so. Both of you waited for an opportunity and went on executing your criminal plan without any remorse.
    
11. I now proceed 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.
    
12. 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
    
13. Justice Goundar in State vs Mataiasi Bulivou Susu [2010] FJHC 226; HAC054. HA0; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010) found that organized gang robberies attract the sentence of 8-14 year imprisonment. Justice Shameem in Seseu v State 2003, FJHC 224, HAM0043J, 2003S, 10 December 2003) found that the tariff for robbery with violence is 4-7 years. Justice Shameem in Sa Basa vs. the Sthe State (Crimippeal AAU 24/2005), held that "'Sentences for robberies involving firearould range from six to eight years. A lower range of four to seven years is appropriate whee where firearms are not used and the premises are banks, 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'
    
14. Justice Goundar in Sususe (supra),pra), has summarihed the guiding principles in sentencing in cases involving robbery. They are:' From these authorities, the following principles emerge. The dominantor inssing seriousnesssness for any types of robbery is the degr 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.