PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Magistrates Court of Fiji
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Magistrates Court of Fiji >> 2017 >> [2017] FJMC 52

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Ravula [2017] FJMC 52; Criminal Case 191.2017 (18 April 2017)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: -191/2017

STATE

V

MARIKA RAVULA

For the Prosecution : Cpl Luke

For the accused: Ms.Lynda Tabuya

Date of Sentence : 18th of April 2017

SENTENCE

  1. MARIKA RAVULA, you pleaded guilty this morning to 2 counts of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
  2. According to the admitted summary of facts on 18th and 19th January 2017 using the ATM card you stole monies from your grandmother’s account.
  3. In her mitigation the learned counsel for the accused is asking for discharge without a conviction based on section 44 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
  4. But it has been held that non-conviction would be given only for morally blameless people or technical breaches (State v Nayacalagilagi (2009) FJHC 73; HAC165.2007 (17th March 2009), Guidelines by his Lordship Chief Justice Gates in State v Batiratu [2012] FJHC 864; HAR001.2012 (13 February 2012).
  5. You do not fall in to any of these categories. Hence having satisfied about your plea this court convict you for this charge.
  6. Maximum penalty for Theft is 10 years imprisonment.
  7. 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.

  1. In Tubuna v State [2017] FJHC 231; HAA04.2017 (28 March 2017) his Lordship Justice Sharma held that applicable tariff for theft by breach of trust
  2. In Laisiasa Koro v State [2013] FJCA 15; AAU0018.2010 (5 Mar5 March 20ch 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.

  1. You stole from your grandmother who was looking after you. Hence this falls in to breach of trust and I select 20 months as the starting point for each count.
  2. The aggravating factor is breach of trust, but since I have considered that is selecting the starting point I am not going to enhance your sentence.
  3. In mitigation your counsel submitted the following:
    1. 19 years old;
    2. Co-operated with the police;
    1. First offender;
    1. Single.
  4. For these mitigating factors, I deduct 05 months to reach 15 months imprisonment for each count.
  5. For pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, finally I deduct 1/3 to reach 10months imprisonment. Considering the totality principle I order these to be concurrent.
  6. Even though this is below the accepted tariff, I have come to this sentence based on lack of aggravating factors and considering the early guilty plea of the accused.
  7. In State v Raymond Roberts ( HAA0053 of 2003S), Madam Shameem held that

" the principles that emerge from these cases are that a custodial sentence is inevitable where the accused pleaded not guilty and makes no attempt at genuine restitution. Where there is a plea of guilty, a custodial sentence may still be inevitable where there is a bad breach of trust, the money stolen is high in value and the accused shows no remorse or attempt at reparation".

  1. You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity after getting the proper legal advice and also co-operated with the police. The amounts of the monies are small. You are a young offender. Hence I agree with your counsel that the main purpose of this sentence is to allow you the chance to rehabilitate.
  2. Accordingly I suspend both of your 10 months imprisonment for 01 year.
  3. If you commit any offences during next 01 year you can be charge under section 28 of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
  4. 28 days to appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2017/52.html