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

State v Prasad [2013] FJMC 207; Criminal Case 61.2013 (27 May 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF FIJI
AT TAVUA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 61/13

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

ALVIN PRASAD

Prosecution: PC Dinesh
Accused: In Person

SENTENCE

1. Alvin Prasad you pleaded guilty to theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree No. 44 of 2009.
   
2. You pleaded guilty voluntarily to the charge when it was read and explained. You also accepted the facts.
   
3. The Court is satisfied that your guilty plea is unequivocal and you are convicted as charged.
   
4. Between 7/12/2012 and 3/3/2013 the complainant (Ram Naresh 64yrs) had left for New Zealand with his family and gave his properties to you to look after including his goats. Upon returning to the country the complainant noted his goats (2 nanny goats & 2 kids) missing. He then confronted you and evaded him for a few days.

The matter was reported to police and upon investigations being carried out, you were arrested.
After being arrested you then cautioned interviewed and charged accordingly for the alleged offence. You admitted the offence to police in the caution interview. You admitted selling the goats.
The said goats were also recovered by police.

5. You mitigated and I take the following in your favour:
   
   • First Offender.
   • Guilty plea.
   • Goats have been recovered.
     
6. The following features I would regard as aggravating:
   
   • Prevalence of offence in community.
   • Breach of trust.
     
7. Theft under the Crimes Decree carries a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years.

The guideline in case authorities suggest that tariff for theft ranges from 2-9 months for 1st convictions and between 9 – 24 months for 2nd convictions depending on the value of the goods and circumstances of the stealing. (see: State v Saukilagi [2005] FJHC 13; Ronald Vikash Singh v State HAA 035 of 2002)

8. The offending in this case cannot be regarded as a simple theft matter. The courts have always viewed livestock and crop or farm theft as serious because of the public interest factor involved. Most farmers rely on livestock and crops to support and improve their livelihood. Thus the court will not deal leniently with those engaging in livestock, crop or farm theft.
   
9. His Lordship Judge Goundar stated in the recent Labasa case of State v Filipe Ratusuka & 8 Others Criminal Appeal No. HAA001/2013, at paragraph 17 "Farm theft is considered a serious offence because of the value that the commodities bring to the farmer and the community. For this reason, theft of cattle, goats, livestock and root crops from farming community is usually punished by custodial sentences to deter the offenders and others from engaging in this type of conduct in the future (Sateo Tuta v State [2002] HAA 5/02B, Abdul Afiz v State [1990] HAA 0011 & 12/89S, Jone Naca v State HAA016/-02S, Penisoni Waqa v State [2004] HAA 101/04L)."
   
10. In considering the circumstances of the offending in this case I take a starting point of 18 months.
    
11. For the aggravating factors I increase your sentence by 2 months. Your sentence is now 20 months imprisonment.
    
12. For your guilty plea I reduce your sentence by 6 months imprisonment. For other mitigating circumstances I further reduce your sentence by 4 months. Your sentence is now 10 months imprisonment.
    
13. I now consider whether to suspend your sentence. You are a first offender however the offence is prevalent in community and a deterrent sentence is clearly warranted. The case authority noted above shows that the Courts usually regard theft of livestock as serious and a custodial sentence is warranted in the public interest. Further there are no exceptional circumstances to wholly suspend the sentence. In the opinion of the Court it would be appropriate that you serve part of your sentence in prison and part to be suspended for your rehabilitation.
    
14. This sentence should send out a clear warning to others in community who may have similar impulses.
    
15. I order that you serve 3 months in prison and the remainder of 7 months be suspended for 2 years.
    
16. If you commit any offence within the period of 2 years, you'll be charged for breaching the suspension order and if convicted, you'll be made to serve the 7 months with any other penalty imposed in that other offence.
    
17. 28 days to appeal.
    

__________________________________
Samuela Qica
Resident Magistrate

27th May 2013