State v Kamipe [1996] PGNC 30; N1471 (11 September 1996)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1471

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 860 OF 1996
STATE
V
MICHAEL KAMIPE

Goroka

Sawong J
5 September 1996
11 September 1996

CRIMINAL LAW - Particulars of Offence - Unlawful Taking or Exercising Control of Aircraft Sections 393 (2) of the Criminal Code Act - Plea of Guilty - Sentence.

CRIMINAL LAW - Unlawful of Taking and Control of Aircraft - Plea of Guilty - Sentence.

CRIMINAL LAW - Stealing - As section 372 (10) - Stealing - Plea of Guilty - Sentence.

Counsel

Mrs C Ashton-Lewis for the State

Mr F Terra for the Accused

DECISION ON SENTENCE

11 September 1996

SAWONG J:

THE CHARGE

The State presented an indictment containing two counts against the accused. The counts were:

FCRST COUNT

S. 393 (2) (c): Michael Kamipe of Yogmul Village, Chimbu Province is charge that he on the 10th day of April 1etween Port Moresby and Wau Unlawfully Exercised Control of a Twin Engine Cessna 402 and atnd at this time the Said Michael Kamipe was in company with other person.

SECOND COUNT

Michael Kamipe is further charged that he on the 10th day of April 1996 at Tarapo stole cash in the sum of K33,800.00 the property of Nangmanga Pty Ltd.

Upon his arraignment the accused plead guilty to both counts. H duly convicted and I adjI adjourn sentencing him to today.

THE FACTS

The facts of the case are contained in the various Witnesses Statements and the accused’s Record of Interview with the Police Investigating Officers. They revhat during March orch of 1996 the accused and two others were informed that on the 10th of April 1996 a company called Hayes & Ekas Pty Ltd would be transporting a large amount of money from Port Moresby to Wau on an MBA flight. The accused and his twomplcomplices then made a plan to hijack the plane and steal the money. Thus, on 10 April 1996 ccu accused and his accomplices boarded a MBA Twin Engine Cessna 402 plane at Port Moresby for Wau. When they boarded the& flight the three of them had a knife with them. There were two othesengersngers who who were also travelling on that flight.& The plane took off from Port Moresby and when it was approaching Wau to land at the Wau Aiau Airstrip, one of the prisoners accomplient up to the pilot and thrd threatened the pilot with the knife. He then demanded and told the pilot to fly them towards Goroka. The evidence shows that the pilot then diverted his plane and was instructed to land at Tarapo Airstrip in the Okapa Dit of the Eastern Highlands Province. The plane landedanded at the Tarapo Airstrip. The three offendhen locateocated the cash box in the cargo section of the plane. Upon locating it they broke it open and remove the sum of K33,800 in cash and put thto thags and subsequenequently left the airstrip on foot. 160; The money he propertyperty of Nangamanga Pty Ltd. After they lehe pilot fhe the plane to e to Goroka and reported the incident to the Control Tower and then subsequently to the Police. The ed wasequearresteresterested during a Police Raid. During the process of olicPolice Investnvestigations the sum of K27,855.54 was reed and it was returned to it’s proprietor Nangamanga Pty Ltd.

THE ACCUSED

At the time of the offence ccused was about 20 years oars old. He is a first offender and has pleaded guilty. He comes frrumu Village nege near Kundiawa in the Chimbu Province. He was ted on the 10th of h of April, 1996 and was kept in custody, but after about 4 days inody haped. He waHe was subsequently apprehended and the Dihe District Court Sitting at Goroka sentence him to 6 months imprisonment for escaping from Lawful Custody. Heow serving that sentencetence. or the purpose of this cass case, he is to be treated as a first offender as at the time he committed the offences for which he is before this court, he has no prior convictions.

FACIN FAVOUR OF THE PRISONER

I have considered and taken into consideration in favour of the prisoner the fact that he has pleaded guilty and that he is a first offender. I do noard him as a youthfouthful offender. His prior good character have been reduced significantly because of the seriousness of the offences that was committed by the offender. I furthke ins favhat fact fact fact he has cooperated with the Police during the investigations and read readily made admissions. He has ho expr no remoresnoresness for his conduct. I also note what you saidoin your allocatuocatus.

FACTORS AGAINST THE PRIS/b>

The offence involved aggravating factors in that the prisoner and his accompliceplices had planned to commit this crime.&#They executed their plan suan successfully. They used an offenseapon npon namely a knife with which the pilot was threatened. er by their actions the lihe lives of other innocent passengers who were in the same flight were put at risk. The off wereitted numberumberumber of men, acting together. The offences involve use ouse of thre threats of violence.

The amount ofy that was stolen was quite substantial. I note however that a substantial amount of t of the money that was stolen was recover160; I consider that the ofhe offences which the offender committed were serious and violent crimes.

THE SENTENCE

No comparable cases have been put before me in relation to both charges. Mr Tera sued that the crim crime of hijacking is similar to a robbery of a vehicle on a street. Thereforesentence ought toht to be similar to a sentence on an offender who robs a vehicle on the st

I do not accept thit this submission. I consider that a hija of g of an aeroplane whilst on the air is much more serious than the robbery of a vehicle on the street.

I consider that the sentences for hijacking must reflect the serious view whichLegislature took over this this particular crime in fixing the maximum sentence as life imprisonment.

Neither the pilot nor any of the other passengers suffered any physical injuries. er, I have no doubts that that this was a frightening experience for them. Although a substantiount ount of money stolen was recovered, nevertheless some five thousand Kina (K5000.00) wa recovered.

I considonsider that the court has a duty to impose a sentence that will not only punish and deter you, but more importantly act as a deterrent to others who might have a like mind to commit these kinds of offences.

In those circumstances I consider that no other punishment is appropriate other than an immediate deterrent and punitive custodial sentence. In thcumstances I sentencetence you to six (6) years imprisonment with hard labour on the first count. On the second count I see you to 4 years imprisonment in hard labour. I consider that althoue acte acts constconstituting the offences were separate antinct, the offences were committed in the prosecution of the single purpose. In otherother words I cereidered that the offencese out of the same or e or closely related facts.

Consequently I ordered that the sentence of 4 years imprisonment on thend count is to be served concurrently with the sentence on e on the first count for hijacking.

I order that the sentence of six (6) years be made cumulative upon the sentence for escaping from lawful custody which you are serving. In other words the sen of e of six years shall be served after you have served your sentence for escaping.

Lawyers for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyers for the Accused: Public Solicitor