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

State v Lagilevu [2011] FJMC 45; CRC28 & 30.2011 (24 March 2011)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Criminal case No 28/11 and 30 /11

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

WISE EZEKIEL LAGILEVU

SENTENCE

1. You, Wise Ezekiel Lagilevu are to be sentenced upon pleading guilty to one count of theft contrary to Section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree in Case No 28 of 2011 and another count of theft contrary to Section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree in Case No 30 of 2011.
   
2. Initially the charge in Case No 28 of 2011 was robbery and it was later amended to theft.
   
3. The maximum punishment for theft is 10 years imprisonment. In these two cases I pick my starting point for each count of theft as 24 months.
   

Facts

4. Case No 28 of 2011
   

On the 26th December 2010 the Complainant, Shivni Shivhka Chand was at Yasawa street in Lautoka city waiting for the transport to go back to Ba when the accused approached her and requested her if she can assist him to get his girlfriend from Simla. The Complainant felt sorry and agreed to accompany him to Simla. Both the Complainant and the accused took a walk to Lautoka Hospital where they hired a carrier to Simla. Whilst they reached Tualesia Street both of them got off the carrier and then took a walk towards a vacant land. Suddenly the accused grabbed the Complainant's mobile phone from her pocket with $ 15 cash and ran away. The Complainant asked for assistance from nearby residence and later matter was reported to the Police. The accused was arrested on the 5th January 2011. The mobile phone was recovered from the accused when he was arrested.

5. Case No 30 of 2011
   

On the 29th December 2010 the Complainant, Shivam Gounder was walking at Nede Street when he was approached by the accused. The accused asked the Complainant if he could use his mobile phone to call his friend. The Complainant then gave the phone to the accused. The accused took the phone and walked away. The Complainant followed him but the accused disappeared along Vitogo Parade. The matter was reported to Police and the accused was arrested on the 5th January 2011. The phone was recovered from the person to whom it was sold by the accused.

6. It was also revealed that you were not cooperative with the investigations. You refused to answer at the caution interview.
   

Mitigation

7. Your Counsel informed Court that you are 22 years and do not have a record of violent behaviour. He said you are undertaking an electrical course and already completed 5 stages. He asked for mercy on your behalf. It was informed that you want to further your studies and you are from an unfortunate family back ground. The learned Counsel further informed Court that you were treated in an inhuman manner when you were arrested. Further it was urged to consider the time you were in remand, if a custodial sentence is imposed.
   
8. You admitted that you have 4 previous convictions. Although you did not plead guilty at the very out set I consider your plea as an early plea of guilt.
   

Sentences

9. It appears that you committed both these offences in a well planned manner. You picked vulnerable members of the society as your prey to launch your deceitful missions. One of your victims is a 19 year old girl and the other is a 15 year old student. You committed these offences between a time span of 4 days. You were not cooperative with the Police. Further it does not appear that you learnt a lesson from your previous convictions. For those aggravating circumstances I enhance the sentence in each case by 6 months.
   
10. For the mitigatory circumstances I decide to reduce the sentences in each case by 6 months. For the early guilty plea I further give you a discount of 8 months.
    
11. Accordingly I impose 16 months imprisonment on you, for each count in Case No 28/11 and 30/11.
    
12. The Court has to impose appropriate sentences on offenders and at the same time such sentences should necessarily reflect that the Court and the society denounce this kind of actions. I do not think the circumstances in this case warrant this Court to impose a non custodial sentence on you. However I order the sentences in both cases to run concurrent to each other. You were in remand custody since 10th January 2011. Therefore I decide reduce two months and two weeks from your term.
    
13. Accordingly you should serve a total term of 13 months and two weeks.
    
14. The court is mindful of the significance of motivating young offenders to rehabilitate themselves. Thus the court has to leave some room for the offenders to reap fruits from genuine and effective rehabilitation and correction. Therefore I order that you are eligible for parole after 7 months.
    

28 days to appeal

Rangajeeva Wimalsena
Resident Magistrate

Lautoka

24.03.2011