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

State v Koroi [2012] FJMC 24; Criminal Case 53.2010 (22 February 2012)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF SUVA

Criminal Case No: - HAC 53/2010

STATE

V

USAIA KOROI

For Prosecution: - Mr. Pillay W, Mrs. Naidu, Mr. Singh J
Accused Person: - In Person,

SENTENCE

1. You USAIA KOROI were found guilty and convicted by this court for the offence of "Robbery with Violence" which is punishable under Section 293 (1) of the Penal Code Act 17, which entails a punishment up to life imprisonment.
   
2. The summery of facts in this case are that you together with another six accompliorcibly entered into the house of the Mr. Shiri Chand and aand assaulted him with a knife and threatened Mrs. Chand with a knife and stole properties and cash worth of $ 3,648
   
3. This is an act of home invasion in night and robbed therein by assaulting and threatening the occupants of the house. You and your other accomplices were armed with offensive weapons and used them to assault and threaten the occupants of the house. The crimes in this nature are becoming a serious problem and warranted a greater judicial intervention in sentencing. You and your accomplices tried to enter into the house of Mr. Shiri Chand by pretending innocent representation by asking if he sell cigarettes.
   
4. The learned counsel for the prosecution in her sentencing submission she discussed the tariff for the offense of robbery with violence and urged to consider following facts as aggravating circumstance;
   
   1. This case is that of a home invasion of a vulnerable couple, where Shiri Chand was of 48 years of age and his wife, 54 years of age. The offence was carried out at 1 am when couple were the only occupants in their home.
      
   2. The offence was carried out by seven armed assailants of whom the Accused was a party to. The assailants were armed with beer bottles, a cane knife, iron rods and a knife. Their illegal possession of offensive weapons depicts not only their intentions for committing the offence of robbery, but also their intention to inflict serious harm.
      
   3. The assailants appeared at the door of the victims' house with an innocent representation, asking them if they were selling cigarettes. They deceived the victims when they forced the door open whereby their motive of a robbery was revealed.
      
   4. Shiri Chand was struck at with a cane knife and in the instinctive act to defend himself, escaped with minor injuries. His wife was threatened with a knife held at her neck, demanding that her wedding rings be removed or her finger would be cut off.
      
   5. At the time of offence, the assailant caused the victims to endure tremendous sense of chaos through actual threat and physical harm, along with being in the highest state of fear, anticipating uncertain forms of immediate life threatening acts.
      
   6. Such an act displays a life threatening situation for the victims and for the community. The victims now endure a lifelong terrorizing memory whereby their sense of liberty, comfort and security in their own home is compromised to one of uncertainty and constant fear of the unknown.
      
   7. Properties that were taken were acquired by the victims' honest means of income and lifestyle as opposed to the heinous and guiltless act display by the offenders which allowed them easily acquired possession of another's property, inflicting fear, pain, loss of items of monetary and sentimental value and, injuries.
      
   8. The Accused, as part of planned home invasion, displayed a clear intention to ignore and defy the law and all sense of morality.
      
   9. The Accused has one previous conviction.
      
5. The accused merely denied all allegations against him in his written mitigation submission. The accused further stated that he is waiting for his visa to travel USA and to join with his parent and therefore pleased with a non custodial sentence.
   
6. Having considered the summery of facts, aggravating circumstances of this case, sentencing submission of the prosecution and the mitigation submission of the accused person, I now turn to consider appropriate sentences on you upon considering the general principles of sentencing under Section 15 (3) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree and objectives of sentencing under section 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
   
7. Justice Goundar in State vs Mataiasi Bulivou Susu [2010] FJHC 226; HAC010; HA0; HAC055.2010; HAC056.2010 (2 July 2010) found that organized gang robberies attract the sentence of 8-14 year ionment. Justice Shameem in Seseu v State 2003, FJHC 224, HAM0043J, 2003 2003S, 10 December 2003) found that the tariff for robbery with violence is 4-7 years. Justice Shameem in Sakiusa Basa vs. the State (Crl Appeal AAU 24/2005), held that "'Sentences for robberies involving firearms should range from six to eight . A lower range of four to seven years is appropriate where firearms are not used and the pthe 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'
   
8. Justice Goundar in Susase (supra),pra), has summarthed the guiding principles in sentencing in cases involving robbery. They are:' From these authorities, the following principles emerge. The dominant factor in assessing seriousness fortypes of robbery is the dege 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.