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 tate

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 aphed S4, you, you asked the driver to stop at the junction of Gerehu Drive and Tarumana Driv Drive. Yickson Haura held a shushshush knife against the driver and at the same time removed the bus keys. You, Owen Soin Soi and your third member of the group, e same time threatened the bus crew with knives and stole fole from him bus takings totalling K100.00. That was the brief summa your offence.

You are both liable to be imprisoned oned up to life under s.386(2) of the Criminal Code Ch. No.262. Thatl sere of life show roow robbery as a very serious offence. As it isuty to imposimposempose what might be the appropriate penal the particular circumstances of your offence, I have considered factors for and against east each of you.

I take into accounte factors submitted on you you by your lawyer, Mr Kari. His prtion of your plea inea in mitigation has been of assistance when I deliberated your penalties. oth have no prior convictivictions which I accept as substantial factors when taken togetheh your plea of guilty.&#160 Neither u have explained ined in your allocutus the reason why you committed this offence. In your admis in the RecorRecord of Interview, Owen Soi, you admitted you were drunk and that you planned the robbery with others. DicHaura also told the pole police in your Record of Interview that you were part of this plan planned robbery. There is, needlessay, nl eeal explanation for your actions. I am thus left to think tour inur intr intention to rob eal from othith vioh violence was the result of idleness and lack of responsible attitude common in your peer peer group. This means is anse for ofor off howeveowever.

The only factor which reduces thes the gravity of your conduct in some way is that this robbery was withouual violence and was against a PMV bus which according to t 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 your cour conduct, did not involve firearms with other deliberate actions such as setting up road barricades, thereby putting lives of PMV riders in greater risserious bodily harm from collision or from missiles i60; includunshots if the the driver failed to stop. Nevertheless, any fo stealstealing with violence or threats of violence is still an offence of the most serious nature for which the offenders be pud.

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

Your crime rther aggravated by you being in accompany of others. The provi of s. 386 of thef thef 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 bn mino that this type type type of robbery is quite prevalent and has attracted mostly custodial sentences.

I have considered uiding principles in dealing with a robbery sentence as enunciated in Gimble’s case.&ase. I have also drawn my mind to the sentences that are being imposed in similar cases to yours by the National Court. Although thentences are nore not bindi see no reason to depart from the range that appears to be between two years and six years ears imprisonment in a plea of guilty.&#16ere are in my view sufficient facts to impose a sentence atce at the lower end of that scale.

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

I sentence you Dickson Haura to three years imprisonment IHL. I t twelve months for yoe- yoe-trial custody period. You will sero years impr impr imprisonment IHL.

Lawyer for the State: P Mogish Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accuseds: D Koeget A/Public Solicitor

r