State v Apei [1999] PGNC 103; N1929 (19 November 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1929

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1084 OF 1999
STATE
-V-
SIMON APEI, BRYAN APOE & BOBBY TOM

Lae

Injia J
11 NOVEMBER 1999
17 NOVEMBER 1999
19 NOVEMBER 1999

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Plea - Aggravated Robbery - Revenge attack on Village Company Trade Store Staff - K4,099.91 stolen - Innocent by-stander chasing suspects shot and wounded - Punitive and deterrent sentence appropriate - 12 years imprisonment imposed.

Cases Cited

Gimble -v- The State [1988 - 89] PNGLR 271.

Public Prosecutor -v- Don Hale SC 546 (1998).

Counsel

Mr L. Rangan for the State

Mrs A. Raymond for the Accused

19 November 1999

INJIA J: The three accused pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery contrary to S.386(1) & (2) of the Criminal Code (Ch. No. 262). The maximum punishment for aggravated robbery is life imprisonment.

The accused were in a group of 4 men who armed themselves with two home-made guns and 2 bushknives, covered their faces with masks and proceeded to hold up staff of the trade store owned by the Siassi Development Corporation Ltd on Siassi Island on 13/4/99 at 7.30am and stole K4,099.91. Actual violence was used in the process of the robbery. The store-keeper Mathew Simon was cut with a knife but he ducked and avoided the blow and the blow smashed the counter glass. The Dispatch Clerk Jerry Sani was hit with a gun butt. Female workers, Anna Andrew, Lorna John and Esther Elabe frowned in fright and Anna spent time in the toilet hiding and when she came out, a gun was pointed at her. The accused entered the Manager’s office and took the money. They then exited from the scene but were chased by the staff and other members of the public and apprehended. In the process of exiting from the scene, Bobby Tom shot one Mathew David who was one of the persons chasing him and injured him. Although he was taken to the health centre at Lablab for treatment and later admitted at Lae’s Angau Memorial Hospital, there is no medical report on file to indicate the seriousness and extent of the injuries he sustained. Their reason for committing the offence was that the company was discriminating against men and women from their villages in giving employment at the store, which they say is owned by the villagers.

All accused are middle aged men in the mid to late 20’s. Only Bobby is married with 1 child. They come from respectable and good family backgrounds. Only Bobby is educated up to Grade 10. Simon and Bryan are village boys. All accused are of previous good character and they have no prior convictions. They co-operated with police, freely admitted the offence to police and returned the money stolen. They all pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. According to Bobby, he was threatened and coerced by another co-accused, who is at large, one Zure Mote, to participate in the crime. In turn Simon and Bryan were recruited and convinced to come along by Bobby and Zure. Bobby shot Mathew David to facilitate his escape. Also according to Bobby, they were all subjected to heavy-handed treatment, assaulted and abused by policemen and other people who apprehended them. In particular he himself was subjected to further indignities. I take into account all these factors in their favour.

This was a serious robbery as the factual circumstances I have extrapolated demonstrate. Bobby no doubt was the second in command of the group to Zure. But the fact that Zure is still at large is not a proper mitigating factor on sentence of these accused. Innocent people were threatened and hurt in the process. The fact that they were unhappy about job distribution by their local company is no good reason for robbing the company in this violent fashion. For the kind of robbery perpetrated in this manner, it is difficult to accommodate the accused’s request for a non-custodial sentence. Sentences for all categories of robbery have been on the increase since the celebrated case of Gimble -v- The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271: see Public Prosecutor -v Don Hale SC 564 (1998). The mitigating factors referred to do not in any way significantly reduce the seriousness of the offence committed. They are common mitigating factors which accused often raise in the Courts. In the circumstances, a strong deterrent and punitive custodial sentence is warranted in this case, to demonstrate to the peace-loving people of Siassi Island and the people of PNG that the community and the Courts which represent it do not tolerate this kind of behaviour at all levels of the community. Disgruntled villagers who take the law into their own hands, to avenge their grudges, for whatever reason, against people conducting their businesses lawfully in their villages, need to be adequately punished to serve as deterrent to others. In considering sentence for each accused, I should say that Bobby being one of the ring leaders of the group who shot and injured Mathew David should be differently treated, but because he suffered more indignities and assault at the hands of those who apprehended him, I will give him the same treatment I accord to Bryan and Simon.

Bearing in mind the maximum punishment is life imprisonment and taking into account the aggravating features and the various mitigating factors referred to, I consider that a sentence of 12 years is appropriate and I impose the same. I deduct the period each accused has spent in custody, that is to say, in respect of Bobby Tom, the period of 7 months 6 days. He will serve 11 years 4 months 24 days. In respect of Brian Apoe and Simon Apei, the period of 6 months 7 days each. They will serve 11 years 5 months and 23 days.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor