State v Goru [1989] PGNC 11; N767 (10 July 1989)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N767

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR: 617/89
THE STATE
-V-
NORM WAKORE GORU

Kimbe

Barnett J
10 July 1989

SENTENCE - armed robbery - deterrence, - reformation, - probation. Criminal Code s 19.

Young first offender convicted of armed robbery of a plantation payroll in company with members of a gang armed with guns and bush knives. No physical violence was used by the gang and prisoner repented and repaid the money next day then gave himself up. Very favourable probation report. Principles of reformation and deterrance considered and applied.

Held:

Three year suspended sentence, three years recognisance to be of good behaviour, probation and a community work order imposed as a condition of the recognisance.

SENTENCE

BARNETT J: The prisoner has been convicted of armed robbery. He was a “junior” member of a gang of four which broke into a plantation office immedi after the payroll was delivered by helicopter.

The gang was armed with a rifle, two, two home made shotguns and a bushknife (held by the accused). They held up the plantation manager and security guard and escaped with K3,590 in cash. The plantation manager and staff put up no resistance and no shots were fired and no physical violence was used.

This type of incident is becoming quite common and poses a serious threat to the safety of the managers and staff of isolated plantations.

The prisoner is 20 years old and, until this offence has been acting as head of the family for the younger children of his widowed mother. He has been managing her small copra plantation.

I have inquired into the previous “convictions” which have been alleged against the accused based on information provided by him. I am satisfied that he was given a good behaviour bond arising from an incident on a plantation in which he played only a minor part. The conviction and sentence for having in his possession a copra knife occurred in circumstances which did not constitute a criminal offence but he was unjustly convicted. I propose to treat him now as a first offender.

After the offence was completed Norm had the choice of running off with his three co-accused or of “turning back”. Norm decided to “turn back” to a law-abiding path.

· Tce ac asedogiold toethe pthe planation manager the very next day and returned the K100 which had been left at his mother’s house as his share.

· ـ &##60;& H60; He voluntarilyarily gave himself up to the police.

· &<;ɘ H6 co operateerated fully with police.

· ـ҈&҈#160;#160; He p He pleadeleaded guilty to the charge.

I have sought and received a report from the Probation Officer Mr Bruno Saio which recommended s being a suitable candidate for probation as he comes from from a good family, has (in effect) no previous convictions and has gainful employment managing his widowed mother’s small copra plantation and acting as head of his family.

I consider that the public interest in deterring crimes of this nature would normally require me to sentence this first offender in such an armed robbery to about three (3) years imprisonment. In view of the mitigating factors mentioned above however, I believe that the interests of society and certainly the interests of the accused would be served best by suspending that sentence on condition the prisoner consents to a probation order and submits to strict conditions imposed pursuant to my power under s 19 of the criminal code.

This is the case of a man who voluntarily turned away from crime immediately after the events and returned the money which he had gained. After considering the probation report and hearing the prisoner I believe that the chances of reformation are good. The principle of deterrence can be sufficiently applied by the suspended sentence and by a community work order.

ORDER:

I sentence the prisoner to three (3) years, I.H.L.

The sentence is however, suspended on the following conditions:

(a) that herenteo inteco risannisance to be of good behaviour for three (3) years,

(b) that he conse t tore th3) (3) years probation order to be supervised by antaryationcer specified by d by the Pthe Probatrobation Officer (to be the President of the village Court),

(c) &#16at he will do communityunity work one day per week for one year as directed by the Voluntary Probation Officer,

(d) &#that he reponthlyhe sped sped Voluntary Probation Officefficer forr for thre three (3)e (3) years,

(e) & that heat he will reside his m for ast oar from the date of this orde order.

>

LawyeLawyer for the State: The Public Prosecutor

Counsel: Miss S. Maunse>

r forAccused: The Public Solicitor

Counselunsel: (Mr: (Mr B. D B. Dillon)