State v Francis and Bawai [1997] PGNC 166; N1671 (19 December 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1671

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1307 OF 1997
THE STATE
-V-
STEVEN FRANCIS AND MOSES BAWAI

Waigani

Batari AJ
10 December 1997
19 December 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Robbery - Street robbery - Young first offenders - Plea of guilty - Two offenders accosted victim on street and grabbed handed bag - Victim threatened with pistol when resisted - Unlikely to re-offend - Three years part-suspended on conditions.

Cases Cited

A/PP v Clement Maki & Tom Kasen (1981) SC No. 205

Counsel

P. Kaluwin with Devete for the State

J. Ulge, for the Accuseds

19 December 1997

BATARI AJ: Steven Francis and Moses Bawai, I will now sentence you, following your conviction on one count of robbery.

On 8 June, 1997 about mid-day, you accosted the victim, Cybella Zarika as she walked up ‘H’ Hill on Henao Drive, Gordons Estate in the National Capital District. She was with her brother, Reuben Zarika. You Steven Francis held a home-made pistol, and you Moses Bawai knew your companion was so armed and had followed him. There were some elements of planning involved to hold up the victim. It was stated by the victim that the taller of the two of you; that pointed to you, Steven Francis, walked past the victim who was resting and stood some distance away. The other, I take it to mean you, Moses Bawai followed and as you reached the victim, you grabbed her bag. When she resisted, you Steven Francis came to your friend’s aid and threatened her with the pistol. She released the bag and the two of you fled with it. However, you were both detained by the police shortly after the incident. The bag was also returned with its contents of K500.00 in cash.

Robbery is a prevalence offence being invariably committed by young persons like you who seemed to have nothing better and useful to do than prey upon innocent people and rob them of their valuables. Your lawyer has submitted you Steven Francis had embarked on this criminal conduct in order to meet your school fees. I can understand if you did this either at the end of or at the beginning of the school year. Even if this were true, it was most foolish of you to adopt such criminal means to achieve a noble intention. If you badly needed money to continue your education, you must have self-discipline, respect and a sense of responsibility because that is what education is all about. The school is not a place for criminals so that you can commit a crime in order to go to school. That was what your lawyer wanted me to accept. There are legitimate and better ways of getting money for your school fees, one of which is to find casual work or better still, market your cash or food crops. However, I do appreciate the hardship which had resulted in the early termination of your school. I accept that it may have not been your own making and that this had caused you grief, frustrations and idleness which led eventually to this offence.

This is a street robbery for which a sentence of three (3) years has been held as the starting point. There were no aggravating features. Your victim was unharmed and initially, it was simply going to be a ‘snatch and run’ incident. However, violence, and threats of this were also within your contemplation. The bag was retrieved with its contents in tact. A sentence on the lighter side of the range of sentences for robbery is in my view warranted on the facts of your case.

I take into account:

(1) ـ your eally plea of a of guilty;

(2) that you haverno pcoor ctivictions;

(3) &##160;; your reur remorse;orse;

(4) ҈& no a harm or lossswas sud by ictim.

You Steven Francis are 16 years old aold and yond you Mosu Moses Baes Bawai awai are 17 years old. You are both young man. I consthat youthfulness merits consideration when other fact factors sors such as plea of guilty, prior good conduct and remorse are also present. I say this because a plea of youth may not be an effective mitigating factor where the offence is prevalent and that it is invariably committed by youthful offenders. (See A/PP v Clement Maki and Tom Kasen (1981) SC No. 205). Robbery, experience has shown is one such offence which is prevalent nation-wide and committed largely by young offenders.

I bear in mind also your future prospects and conclude that one way to ensure you do not re-offend again is to give you a chance. I think you can be usefully punished if your punishment included suspension of sentence. I sentence you as follows:-

(1) ـ&#1ou areu are to beto be imprisoned for three (3) years.

(2) Six (6) months are deductrdyour rial custody period.

(3) 2)o (arsyere sare suspenuspenuspended and you are placed on a good beha bonda perf twoyearsrom 8 June, 1998.

(4)&>(4) #160; ҈  The conditions of yood behd behaviour bond are that: -

(a) ; you are to beareleased oned on K200.00 cash each to be paid upon breach of your Good Behaviour Bond.

(b)ـ҈& you are to immely leave the National Capital District upon tyour release onse on 8 Ju 8 June, 1ne, 1998 t998 to serve your suspended sentence at your village or respective villages.

(c) &&#160 areunot tnot to ente enter the boundaries of the National Capital District for a period of two (2) years.

(d) ҈ reu a keto keep thep the peace and be of gooduct ur vi or resr respectipective vive villages for a period of two (2) years.

(e) if you breach any of trmsoor Gooaviour iour Bond Bond hereiherein, you are to be imprisoned for the balance of your sentences being two (2) years imprisonment with habour

(60;&##160;; this ordersrders are are to beto be serv served oned on the prisoner, the Police Station and Village Court at and Village Cour Police Station and the Village Court or Village Courts having jurisdiction over the prisoners’ village or respective village.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: A/Public Solicitor