State v Yamevi and Dano [1990] PGNC 63; N949 (5 November 1990)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

CRIMINAL LAW- Criminal Code s300(1)(b) - sentencing - killing during an armed robbery - shotgun - relatively young first offenders - plea of guilty.

Fourteen years in hard labour, less six months on remand. To serve thirteen years and six months.

The State -v- Mark Keroa Nentepa, Dokta Kewa and Wat Pena [1990] Unreported Judgement of 18th of April 1990.

The prisoners pleaded guilty to one count each of the murder of Rose Bobola, contrary to s300 of the Criminal Code.

The brief facts on which the prisoners were arraigned (which were altered following the allocutus when the State made certain factual concessions) were that in the middle of April this year Kem Dano borrowed a Winchester Shot-gun from a villager. At about 2pm on the 15th of April he met with five other persons, including Wallen Yamevi and made a plan to hold up a coffee-buyer and steal the monies. Later that day they all went to the entrance of Bobola Coffee Plantation. The prisoners were in a group of watchmen away from a separate group who had the shot-gun, and another home-made gun. When a vehicle was seen to approach, the prisoner’s group whistled to the other group a warning. Two armed men then tried to flag the vehicle down. The vehicle did not stop - it sounded its horn and drove on; as the vehicle passed the armed men the Winchester Shot-gun was discharged into the driver’s side of the vehicle. The shot went through the driver’s side window and hit the driver on the right side of the face and neck. She died more or less instantly.

At about 5.30pm Rose Bobola had dropped Patricia Bobola off at the Hospital. She then went to the Bena Vista restaurant to drop off a person call Paul. She went back to the hospital after doing some shopping, collected Patricia, and with her two children began to drive to her house at Magia Farm. Near Kama it was getting dark, she put on her lights and as they began to climb a hill passed the Medecine Bridge, two armed men appeared from round a corner. Patricia told Rose Bobola to stop - Rose Bobola said “No way” and kept on driving. As the vehicle came level with the robbers a shot was fired and Rose Bobola was killed.

The cause of death was given as respiratory arrest from a shattered windpipe and exsanguination to death from haemorrage as a result of severed cartid arteries and internal jugular veins, caused by a shotgun wound.

The sentencing patterns for killings that have taken place during armed robbery have risen sharply in the past two years. Whereas in 1988, a killing in the course of a highway robbery would attract a sentence of six years, by 1990 a killing in the robbery of a house attracted a sentence of 22 years (robbery 10 years, cumulatively on a sentence of 12 years for manslaughter).

Brutal and deliberate killing in the course of a robbery, as distinct from incidental killings in robberies which sadly go wrong as when a criminal panics, or a victim offers unexpected resistance, have always attracted the highest tariff life imprisonment.

The sentencing practice is a reflection of the times. Although on average the sentence for an armed robbery in which no one was hurt is about three to four years imprisonment, sentences for robbery with aggrevating circumstances have risen to around six to eight years, with sentences of up to twelve years being imposed were the robbery shows sophisticated planning and large amounts of money having been stolen, or where excessive violence, or rape have occured.

The following is a schedule of sentencing practice over the past two years for offences of killing during an armed robbery, and of armed robbery itself.

/td> idth="71" valign="top">

Life

< op">

width="71" valign="top">

6 1/2 yrs

width="71" vali valign="top">

	Schedule
1988
Murder		<
1.	Bredmeyer J during armed hold-up of Plantation Manager
2.	Woods J stabbing highway hold-up of a PMV, accused not principles	6 yrs
3.	Los J highway robbery of wages vehicles	6 yrs
Robbery, highest sentences	>
4. <	Kidu CJ armed hold-up of PMB	6 yrs
5.	Kidu CJ armed hold-up stole victims personal belongings	6 yrs
6.	Woods J coffee buyer robbed and assaulted	7 yrs
7.	Woods J stopped car robbed occupants of cash and car. No violence	6 yrs
8.	Woods J gang held up storekeeper and stole from his house and store	8 yrs
9.	Hinchliffe J held up PMV on the highway	6 yrs
10.	King AJ held up car as it stopped at house gates	7 yrs
11.	Woods J Lae airport robbery	12 yrs
1989
Wilful Murder	<
12.	Hinchliffe J Policeman an Clerled at Garaina; fna; followed sentence of a co-accused by another judge	12 yrs
Murder	<
13.	Hinchliffe J plea/trial old man killed during plan plantation robbery	Life
Robbery, highest sentence
14.	Amet J armed gang, escapees, held upk, stt, and crashed ited it	7 yrs
15.	Woods J tradestore held up; guns used	7 yrs
16.	Woods J armed robbery of plantation manager, violence used	9 yrs
18.	Hinchliffe J armed robbery in home shotgun used	7 yrs
19.	Miriung J armed robbery of private house	6 1/3 yrs
20.	Andrew J att holdup in a home; shot victim	6 yrs
21.	Andrew J broke into house and robbed victim	6 yrs
1990
Murder
22.	Ellis J plea attempted break in victim stabbed
Attempted Murder
23.	Konilio J trial; robbery of sManagot and stabbed	8 yrs
Manslaughter
24.	A plea; robbery 10 years, cumulatively on 12 year manslaughtaughter	22 yrs
25.	Brunton J plea co-accused of Case 2 (above); young offender already served 2 yrs for possession of firearm used in the holdup; total to be served 6 years	4 yrs
Robbery: highest sentences
26.	Amet Jl; ro of supermarket	6 1/2 yrs
27.	Woods J gang blocked road; shotguns used; robbery driver, abducted passenger and raped her	10 yrs
28.	Konilio J armed with guns and knives held up plantation labour	6 yrs
29.	Ellis J trial; robbery of trade store; bystander cut with a knife	6 yrs
30.	Ellis J plea; armed hold up of Pine Lodge accused with a prior conviction	7 yrs
31.	Brown J plea; robbery of Works and Supply pay office; gun fired; prior	7 1/2 yrs
32.	Jalina J trial; robbery of Westpac agency Waigani	6 yrs
33.	Doherty J trial; large gang held up and robbed a store	6 yrs
34.	Doherty J plea; drunk with others robbed a club and store; 2 counts	6 yrs
35.	Andrew J trial; robbery of a store by a large gang	6 yrs
36.	Andrew J trial; robbery of a coffee buyer, shotgun used	6 yrs
37.	Salika J plea; bank robbery	6 yrs
38.	Ellis J trial; gang robbery of a club	6 yrs
39.	Sheehan J bank robbery	6 yrs

In William Ukukul Gimble -v- the State [1989] Unreported Judgement SC.369 the Supreme Court set down guidelines for sentencing in cases of armed robbery. The robbery of a vehicle on the road, by a group of young first offenders, on a trial, was indicated to attract a sentence of five years imprisonment. A lesser sentence was appropriate in uncontested cases. Where actual violence was used, large amounts of property stolen, or there were other aggravating circumstances, higher sentences were consider to be appropriate.

One way of approaching the sentence in a case of killing in the course of an armed robbery would be to apply the principles of Gimble’s case, and then add an appropriate increment, on top of the tariff for robbery, to reflect the fact that a life has been taken. The increment could be ascertained by analogy to the principles in R -v- Steward and Williams [1979] 1 Cr App 793, which deals with the sentencing of manslaughter cases, and was cited in my judgement The State -v- John Gapaiho [1990] Unreported Judgement N800. The size of the increment would be determined by the nature of the killing; for a brutal and or deliberate killing a larger increment cumulating somewhere around the maximum available sentence of life imprisonment, or in the worst cases, life imprisonment. A killing that did not have deliberation, planning, cruelty, but rather had an element of the incidental, accident, stupidity, or negligence, a somewhat lower, increment would be justified.

The word “somewhat” is used deliberately, because I have the view that where guns are used in a robbery the chances that some one will get hurt, or killed are quite real, and that even if the offenders did not expect to kill, if a killing does occur incidently, then they cannot expect too much leniency or mercy. The gap between a deliberate killing, as with wilful murder, and an incidental killing as when the accused armed with pistols and shotguns hold up a PMV is not great. The likelihood of someone getting killed is real.

There is now a generally accepted tariff for murder. The principles are that there should be some difference between the sentences for unintentional killings, manslaughter, and for murder. In the case of murder where there are no special aggravating factors, and the accused pleads guilty the starting point is six years imprisonment. The State -v- Eddie Kava Laura [1989] Unreported Judgement N693 Kidu CJ. In that case, on a trial, a seventeen year old youth, a first offender stabbed an unarmed man to death. The accused showed no remorse. The sentence was eight years. In cases where there are aggravating circumstances a higher sentence will be imposed. Armed robbery is an aggravating circumstances, and in particularly brutal armed robberies the maximum sentence will be imposed. In the State -v- Kenneth Baupo and Fabian Girida [1989] Unreported Judgement N795 a sixty-three year old man was stabbed in the course of a robbery and when another victim attempted to go to his aid he was threatened and ordered at the point of a gun to get the money out of the safe. Later a shot was fired at this victim. Hinchliffe. J imposed life sentence on the two young offenders.

In the case of the State -v- Mek Keroa Nentepa, Dokta Kewa and Wat Pena [1990] Unreported Judgement 18th of April per Amet J the prisoners pleaded guilty to robbing a house and stealing a motor vehicle, the unlawful use of the motor vehicle, and to the manslaughter of the owner, the Minister for Communications Malipu Balakau. They were sentenced to ten years for the armed robbery and twelve years for the manslaughter, sentences to be served cumulatively. The unlawful use of the vehicle attracted a one year sentence which was made concurrent to the robbery sentence. The total sentence was twenty-two years.

It may well be that the severity of this sentence was a result of the State deciding to charge the prisoners with three separate but related offences, and that the cumulative effect of that on the sentencing process was to result in a high term of years. Whatever else may be thought about that, and with respect to His Honour I say nothing more, the case did represent a significant increase in the effective sentence that could be imposed in cases of killings that arise from armed robbery. On that general point, with respect, I agree. His Honour went to some lengths to stress that the sentence did not reflect the fact that the victim was a cabinet minister, and in my view the increase in tariff is of general applicability, when seen in rounded-off terms.

In the case before me both prisoners have pleaded guilty to a single count of murder. It is not one of the ‘worst cases’. Both are relatively young first offenders. They were not the person who pulled the trigger. But they were involved in a plan to hold up the Babola coffee plantation payroll. They say they never intended to kill anybody. They have said in open court that they are genuinely sorry for what they have done, and I accept they are now truly sorry. They have assisted the police.

I am prepared to accept that this is a case of a group of youngsters embarking on a venture to carry out a holdup. That there was an element of adventure, of bravado about it, and that in the way of some young men in this province, they thought it was to be exciting. This is part of the mentality met in other cases, and in the Corrective Institutions, an unthinking, unreflective, simplistic, ideal about crime and its consequences held by youth.

But against this is the untimely death of Rose Bobola. She was a mother and a businesswoman, well-known in and around Goroka. A family has lost a mother, a sister, a daughter, and a community has lost a woman who had made a mark for herself. To these people it is not enough to point out that the killing was unintentional, or that it was nothing more than the consequences of unreflective youth.

Then there is the community at large. First there is the need to protect people from the fear of being held up on the roads as they go about their lives. The community are entitled to think that the courts will not be lenient when some one is killed as the result of a planned highway robbery.

Also there is a need to deter other youths who think that “hansap” is something akin to a game. Armed robbery is a deadly activity; the chances are that some one will be hurt or killed. While it is my view that the court can afford to be lenient in cases which do not have circumstances of aggrevation, clearly in those cases in which a person is killed that cannot be the case.

The principles upon which the sentence is based, are the need for deterence and the need to punish the prisoners for what they have done. I take into account that they have pleaded guilty. In my view this is significant because the system cannot function if it is overloaded with trials, and it is a matter of major assistance to the State and the Community when offenders admit their guilt. Had the prisoners been convicted on a trial I would have considered a sentence of about sixteen years would be appropriate. Here they have pleaded guilty and shown genuine remorse. They are both sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment with hard labour. A period of six months is deducted, being approximately the period they have spent on remand. They are to serve another period of thirteen and a half years.

The prisoners have a right to appeal this sentence to the Supreme Court. If they wish to appeal they must lodge the appeal applications within forty days of today’s date.

National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Yamevi and Dano [1990] PGNC 63; N949 (5 November 1990)