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

State v Tuni [2017] FJMC 21; Criminal Case 1379.2016 (14 February 2017)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: - 1379/2016

STATE

V

IMANUELI TUNI

For the Prosecution : Cpl Shaw

The Accused: In person

Date of Sentence : 14^th of February 2017

SENTENCE

1. IMANUELI TUNI , you were convicted after a hearing to one count of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
2. On 04/08/2016 the complainant was coming to Suva in her vehicle to do some banking in BSP. At that time she had in her possession $15,000.00 cash. Whilst she was trying to park her vehicle behind MHCC, you and 2 others came and started talking with her. Whilst she was distracted you with others grabbed the bag containing money and ran away. Even though this was reported to the police the money was not recovered.
3. Maximum penalty for Theft is 10 years imprisonment.
4. The tariff was outlined in the case of Ratusili v State [2012] FJHC 1249; HAA011.2012 (1 August 2012) where his Lordship Justice Madigan said :

(i) for a first offence of simple theft the sentencing range should be between 2 and 9 months.

(ii) any subsequent offence should attract a penalty of at least 9 months.

(iii) Theft of large sums of money and thefts in breach of trust, whether first offence or not can attract sentences of up to three years.

(iv) regard should be had to the nature of the relationship between offender and victim.

(v) planned thefts will attract greater sentences than opportunistic thefts.

5. In Naisilisili v State [2017] FJHC 77; HAA82.2016 (8 February 2017), Justice Madigan further held that a subsequent offence of Theft would attract the sentence from 09 months to 03 years imprisonment.
6. In Laisiasa Koroivuki v the State [2013] FJCA 15; AAU0018.2010 (5 March 2013) his Lordship Justice Goundar discussed the guiding principles for determining the starting point in sentencing in the following manner:

"In selecting a starting point, the court must have regard to an objective seriousness of the offence. No reference should be made to the mitigating and aggravating factors at this time. As a matter of good practice, the starting point should be picked from the lower or middle range of the tariff. After adjusting for the mitigating and aggravating factors, the final term should fall within the tariff.

7. Considering the nature of offending, your culpability and previous conviction for similar offence, I select 14 months as the starting point in this case.
8. You committed this offence with some others and substantial amount was stolen on that day in broad day light. I consider these as aggravating factors and add 16 months to reach 30 months imprisonment.
9. In your written mitigation you submitted that you are father and grandfather of a family of 09 children and remorseful of what the action on that day. I consider these as valid mitigating factors and deduct 04 months to reach 26 months imprisonment.
10. Even though you asked this court to consider you as a first offender, you got a conviction from 2010. Hence I can’t consider you as a person of good character and this would deprive you also the credit that would be normally given for the character.
11. It is quite alarming to see the motorists are targeted by the criminals in the city in broad day light whilst they are held up in a traffic or trying to park their vehicles. These brazen acts of offenders warrant harsh sentences to denounce their behaviors and to stop these from happening in future.
12. IMANUELI TUNI, this court sentence you to 26 months imprisonment for this charge with a non-parole period of 18 months.
13. 28 days to appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate