The Supreme Court has reduced the prison sentence of a man convicted of importing cocaine into Fiji, ruling that the original penalty was “harsh and excessive”.
In a judgment delivered on April 29, the Court granted special leave to appeal for John Geoffrey Nikolic and allowed his sentence appeal, setting aside earlier decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Nikolic had been sentenced to a total of 23 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years after being convicted of importing 12.9 kilograms of cocaine, possessing additional drugs, and holding unlicensed firearms and ammunition.
However, the Supreme Court found the sentence fell outside the acceptable range at the time it was imposed.
“It appears to me that the sentence imposed on the petitioner was manifestly excessive,” Justice Geoffrey Nettle said.
The Court re-sentenced Nikolic to a total effective term of 18 years imprisonment, with a reduced non-parole period of 13 years.
Under the revised sentence, he will serve 15 years for importing cocaine, two years for possession of additional drugs, and one year for possession of arms and ammunition, with some sentences to run consecutively.
The Court also ruled that eight months spent in remand must be treated as time already served under the sentence, in line with sentencing law.
In its ruling, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of large-scale drug trafficking, noting Fiji’s vulnerability to such crimes and the need for strong deterrence.
But it also found that comparable cases at the time suggested a lower sentencing range should have been applied.
The Court further took into account new mitigating factors, including Nikolic’s deteriorating medical and psychological condition and evidence of rehabilitation during his time in custody.
Nilkolic had in his possession 12.9 kilograms of imported cocaine, 65 tablets of cocaine and methamphetamine and 112 rounds of ammunition without holding an arms licence on June 22, 2018, in Nadi.
The ruling highlights the Court’s role in ensuring sentencing consistency while balancing deterrence, proportionality, and fairness in serious criminal cases.
