PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Magistrates Court of Fiji
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Magistrates Court of Fiji >> 2017 >> [2017] FJMC 58

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

State v Tigarea [2017] FJMC 58; Criminal Case 159.2017 (1 May 2017)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

Criminal Case No: -159/2017

STATE

V

MANUA VAMARASU TIGAREA

For the Prosecution : Cpl Shaw

For the accused: Mr.J.Korotini(LAC)

Date of Sentence : 01st of May 2017

SENTENCE

  1. MANUA VAMARASU TIGAREA, you pleaded guilty in this court to one count of Theft contrary to section 291(1) of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
  2. According to the admitted summary of facts you were working as a management cadet of AGCHEM limited and on 27th June to 28th June 2016 stole from that place $11,683.00. In your caution statement you admitted taking that money to pay for a parcel charge that was brought from United Kingdom.
  3. I am satisfied that your plea was made voluntarily and unequivocal. Accordingly I convict you for this charge.
  4. Maximum penalty for Theft is 10years imprisonment.
  5. 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 brof trust is fros from 18 moto 3 to 3 years imprisonment.
  2. In LaisiasaKoroivuki v thete[2013] FJCA 15; 15; AAU0018.2010 (5 March 2013) his LordsLordship 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. This is a breach of trust by an employee against her company. Hence I select 24 months as the starting point for this sentence.
  2. A substantial amount was stolen by you from the company. This I consider as aggravating the offence and add 06 months to reach 30 months imprisonment.
  3. In mitigation your counsel submitted the following :
    1. 24 years old;
    2. Single and unemployed;
    1. Prepared to pay the money back in installments ;
    1. Remorseful and co-operated with the police.
  4. Even though you are a first offender, in breach of trust offences a little weight can be given for that. Further there is no evidence of meaningful restitution. But for other mitigating factors I deduct 06 months to reach 24 months imprisonment.
  5. For pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, finally I deduct 1/3 to reach 18 months imprisonment.
  6. Now I have to consider whether to suspend your sentence.
  7. In State v Raymond Roberts ( HAA0053 of 2003S), her Ladyship Justice 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. Even though you pleaded guilty early, you have not taken any effort to resituate this money. In your mitigation your counsel submitted that you are fully committed to pay this amount by paying 41.905.50 per month for a period of 06 months. But there is no evidence to confirm about payments even though I gave you 02 months to fulfill your undertaking. Mere words are not sufficient if they are not followed with effort to fulfill that. Hence a custodial sentence is warranted to denounce your behavior and deter other employees from behaving in this manner.
  2. MANUA VAMARASU TIGAREA, I sentence you to 18 months imprisonment for this charge.
  3. 28 days to appeal.

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJMC/2017/58.html