State v Komine [1998] PGNC 43; N1813 (10 June 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1813

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1218 OF 1997THE STATE
V
V
SPAKMAN SEPI KOMINE

Goroka

Sawong J
9 June 1998
10 June 1998

CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - armed robbery of motor vehicle - Plea of guilty - appropriate sentence - robbery is a serious crime - violence and prevalence - immediate punitive and deterrent custodial sentence is appropriate - parity of sentence -

Cases Cited

Gimble v The State [1988 - 89] PNGLR 271

Yamogo Yoanes v The State, Unreported Judgement of Supreme Court, dated 27 November 1997.

Counsel:

C. Ashton-Lewis, for the State

J. Hasu, for the Accused.

10 June 1998

SAWONG J: The accuseaded guilty to a to a charge of armed robbery, an offence contrary to s. 386 (2) (D) of the Criminal Code. You were convicted adjourdjourned sentencing you to today.

The facts of the case are as follows.

On evening of 25 April 1997, you were at your village, when some five other young men approached you. They told you of a plan to go to the Highway and set up a road block to rob people travelling on the said highway. And so yre persuaded to acto accomphem and all six of you then went to the said highway and hid yourselves near the Bena BridgBridge waiting for oncoming vehicles.&#160that time the six of your were acting together and in each each others company. The evidence shhat betweentween the six of you, you were carrying four (4) shotguns and two knives. While you hiding and waitiwaiting, a white mazda truck driven by Kumogia and owned by Bormal Tinemau, was seen approaching the pthe place where you and your friends were hiding. The people in the wereingiving to Madang to g to pay a bride price. They were then cag three pree pigs, some cash and other personal properties.; All those properties were valued at K2,540.00. When the people in ruck apck approacproached your hiding place, you and your fs then came out of your hidr hiding place and block the road and forced the vehicle to stop. When thicle stopped, 5 of 5 of youends jumped onto the back oack of the truck, whilst you went into the front cabin of the said vehicle. Once you were inside, yod a knife to force the driver of the said truck to leave thve the highway and onto a village road. A were travelling, you he u he driver struggled, and during the course of the struggle, the vehicle left the road and oand overturned. You were apprehended and ,here, whilst the rest of your friends escaped.

I have listened and considered carefully all the matters which you te yesterday. I note your own pel historistory, that you are a married man with a fami family, that you have gardens and so on. I also note that you said you were sorry for what you had done. You also asked me to put you on a probation. As I have said, o note whae what you said about contacting illness whilst you have been in custody.

I take into your favour the fact you pleaded guilty, that you have co-operated with thth the police and that you are a first offt offender.

Against these, I must, as a judge take into account any aggravating factors. Hereind that this was not not a spar of the moment commission of a serious, prevalent and violent crime. The evidence shows that tais was a planned robbery. Even you were quite ped toed to wait for as long as y as your wanted to await the arrival of unsuspecting victims. Secondly, I note some of t of the victere id in and after ther the robbery.

This crime of armedarmed robbery is a very very serious crime. You could end up going tl for the rest of your life. That isserious this this chis crime is.

Your lawyer has referred to three case. One ireme Court (i.e. the the case of Gimble v The State [1988 - 89] PNGLR 271.&#b>. The other re National Cour Court case60; The National Court cases are not binding on me and I do not in the circumstances of thif this case, intend to follow them because not consider the decision there to appropriate nor applicaplicable to the facts of this case.

The Supreme Court in Gimble v The State set out, amongst many other matters the range of sentence the National Court may give in a number of different ro casy cases. The court there saat in a in a robbery involving a vehicle, sentence of less than 5 years may be imposed in a where the offender pleads guilty. Turt further said that if t if there are aggravatiavating factors then a sentence of more than 5 years may be imposed. That casedecided in 1989.<989.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Yamogo Yoanes v The State (Unreported judgement dated 27 November 1997], confirmed a sentence of five years imprisonment I have imposed on an offender who pleaded guilty.

The facts of that case were quite simple. The appellant and wo frienfriends, falsely pretended to a PMV driver that they had someone at the hospital to be collected. When they reached theital,ital, the driver was to drive further on and thereafter the appellant and his fris friends held up the driver and other passengers using guns and kni#160; They told them to get off the vehicle and they then dhen drove off in the vehicle. Howevoon tfter,fter, the vthe ve had a punctured tyre and the appellant and his friends lefs left the vehicle undamaged and fled. I sentethe appellant to yeto yearsisonment, and he appealed to the Supreme Court sart saying ying that the sentence was excessive.

The Supreme Court dismissed tpeal and said, at p. 4,

“We are of the opinioninion that in an uncontested case of robbing of a vehicle etc, outthggravating factors, ths, the starting point should be 5 years. contested case with aggravggravating factors, a senten exce 5 years would be appropriate for this category of robbery.” --

In t>In the prhe present, I am firmly of the view that aediate punitive and dand deterrustodial seal sentence must be imposed. I do not accept what yod aaid about being placed on probation, because clearly the facts of this case do not warrant the imposition of such a sentence. I had initially thought otencing you to five to six years imprisonment. But I ut I changed my beca because of the sentence that I had given to your co-ad. Iwas not for that fact, I t, I would have had no hesitation in sending you to jail jail for five to six years.

Finallnote one of your co-acco-accused was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and was sent to the Erap Erap Boys Town to serve his sentence. The main reason I gave him three years was because of his youthfulness (he was aged about 17 years). But it cannot be such wiu. you. However because of the ipancipal parity of sentence, I do not propose to impose a heavier sentence.

In all ircumstances, you are sentenced to 4 years IHL. I take away the perie year year, 1 mo 1 month and 15 days, being the time you were in remand, leaving a balance of two years, 10 months and 15 days IHL.

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor

Lawyr the State: Public Prosecuosecutor