State v Soi and Haura [1997] PGNC 42; N1535 (15 April 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1535

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1018 OF 1996
THE STATE
v
OWEN SOI And DICKSON HAURA

Waigani

Batari AJ
11 April 1997
15 April 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Robbery with threats of violence and in company - Sentence - Robbery of a PMV - Plea of Guilty - Sentence 3 years.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery of a PMV committed in the accompany of the others. The following decision was delivered on their sentence.

Cases Cited:

Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271

Counsel:

D Mark & Ms Zurenuoc for the State

D Kari for the Accused

SENTENCE

15 April 1997

BATARI AJ: Both you Owen Soi and Dickson Haura have pleaded guilty to one count of robbery contrary to s.386(2) (a) & (b) of the Criminal Code.

On 25 April, 1996 the victim was driving a PMV bus enroute Gerehu Stage 4. He stopped at the main Gerehu bus-stop outside Gerehu High School at Stage 2 and the two of you got on with a third friend of yours. When the bus approached Stage 4, you asked the driver to stop at the junction of Gerehu Drive and Tarumana Drive. You, Dickson Haura held a short bush knife against the driver and at the same time removed the bus keys. You, Owen Soi and your third member of the group, at the same time threatened the bus crew with knives and stole from him bus takings totalling K100.00. That was the brief summary of your offence.

You are both liable to be imprisoned up to life under s.386(2) of the Criminal Code Ch. No.262. That penal servitude of life show robbery as a very serious offence. As it is my duty to impose what might be the appropriate penalty in the particular circumstances of your offence, I have considered factors for and against each of you.

I take into account those factors submitted on you by your lawyer, Mr Kari. His preparation of your plea in mitigation has been of assistance when I deliberated your penalties. You both have no prior convictions which I accept as substantial factors when taken together with your plea of guilty. Neither of you have explained in your allocutus the reason why you committed this offence. In your admissions in the Record of Interview, Owen Soi, you admitted you were drunk and that you planned the robbery with others. Dickson Haura, you also told the police in your Record of Interview that you were part of this planned robbery. There is, needless to say, no real explanation for your actions. I am thus left to think that your intention to rob or steal from others with violence was the result of idleness and lack of responsible attitude common in your peer group. This by no means is an excuse for your offence, however.

The only factor which reduces the gravity of your conduct in some way is that this robbery was without actual violence and was against a PMV bus which according to the Supreme Court case of Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271, is a lesser form of robbery than robbery of a house or robbery of a bank. I bear in mind also that your conduct, did not involve firearms with other deliberate actions such as setting up road barricades, thereby putting lives of PMV riders in greater risk of serious bodily harm from collision or from missiles including gunshots if the driver failed to stop. Nevertheless, any form of stealing with violence or threats of violence is still an offence of the most serious nature for which the offenders must be punished.

Your offence was committed with aggravation. You were armed with dangerous or offensive weapons being bush-knives. You both no doubt knew the consequences which may flow from use of a bush-knife against fellow human beings. These consequences may vary from fear of bodily harm to actual bodily harm and in some cases death resulted. So when each of you held a knife against the driver of the bus and his crew, you understood the fear that gripped them and you felt powerful. Now I hope you have realised that there is no real gain materially and spiritually in stealing from others with violence.

Your crime is further aggravated by you being in accompany of others. The provisions of s. 386 of the Criminal Code suggest that robbery committed by a group of persons who were armed with dangerous or offensive weapons is the most serious form of robbery. I bear in mind also that this type of robbery is quite prevalent and has attracted mostly custodial sentences.

I have considered the guiding principles in dealing with a robbery sentence as enunciated in Gimble’s case. I have also drawn my mind to the sentences that are being imposed in similar cases to yours by the National Court. Although those sentences are not binding, I see no reason to depart from the range that appears to be between two years and six years imprisonment in a plea of guilty. There are in my view sufficient facts to impose a sentence at the lower end of that scale.

I sentence you Owen Soi to three years imprisonment IHL. I deduct two weeks pre-trial custody period. You will serve two years and eleven months and two weeks imprisonment IHL.

I sentence you Dickson Haura to three years imprisonment IHL. I deduct twelve months for your pre-trial custody period. You will serve two years imprisonment IHL.

Lawyer for the State: P Mogish Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accuseds: D Koeget A/Public Solicitor