State v Mauwe; The State v Onopika [1999] PGNC 57; N1886 (16 June 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1886

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 933 OF 1998
STATE
VS
LASI MAUWE & MAKI ONOPIKA

Goroka

Kirriwom J
17 May 1999
19 May 1999
3 June 1999
16 June 1999

Counsel

Mrs C. Ashton-Lewis for the State

Mr G. Gendua for the Accused

SENTENCE

16 June 1999

KIRRIWOM J: I found you two guilty of armed robbery. You and other persons held up a Toyota Hi Ace bus on the slope past Bena Bridge on the night of 22nd May 1998, while armed with a home-made shot-gun and other offensive weapons and stole some money from the driver and a pair of stockman boots from the off-sider or the crew-man. You protested your innocence when you were asked to say something before I passed sentence on you.

You asked the Court to impose a short term of sentence on you because you were innocent of the charge. You expressed your concerns that your relatives were threatened and terrorised into paying compensation of cash and goods to the owner of the motor vehicle when you were innocent of the charge.

I accept that there was a raid carried out on the morning of 23rd May 1998 at Katagu village by people from Avani village. You two were apprehended in that raid and handed over to the police for this trouble. But you must also bear in mind that the raid was not prompted solely by this alleged offence. It seems the raid was more likely prompted by the abduction and pack-rape of an Avani girl from Susi’s Club. This girl was rescued in that raid and neither of you denies knowing this girl in the course of the night before the raid at Susi’s Club. You Lasi Mauwe thought that the raid on the village was because of the girl that Maki Onopika brought to the village. So you both knew there was reason for the raid and you were to be blamed.

It is however a coincidence that the owner of the Toyota Hi Ace bus that was robbed was also from Avani. It was also a coincidence that a pair of stockman boots similar to the one forcefully removed from the off-sider of the bus was recovered in Maki Onopika’s house. It was also a very good coincidence that a home-made shot-gun allegedly seen at the scene of the robbery was discovered or found in Maki Mauwe’s house. There was very good circumstantial evidence that pointed strongly to your involvement. This Court was assisted by strong reliable evidence to return a verdict of guilty against you.

Now whilst I do not accept vigilante groups or people taking the law enforcement role into their own hands, on reflection however, the good thing is that law-abiding people have had enough and will no longer sit-back and be terrorised, robbed and raped by a bunch of thugs and hooligans. Every citizen has a right to live and go about his business peacefully without harassment and threats from others.

You two are young men. Lasi Mauwe, you are 21 years old and a Grade 10 school leaver, single and you live in the village. And you Maki Onopika, you are 20 years old, single and you are employed by the New Tribes Mission. Both of you are first offenders. I take these things into account.

However I must tell you that robbery on a public highway in the middle of the night when help is no where near is not an exciting or joyful experience for anyone on the receiving end. In this case it is fortunate that no-one was harmed. Gimble’s case set the starting mark of highway robbery at five years imprisonment. Both the Supreme Court and this Court have time and again said that Gimble is out of date. The prevalence of this crime now require tougher sentences. Young men like you must learn to respect the law and stay within the Law. You achieve nothing good for yourself or your family by misbehaving. You bring trouble upon yourselves. In your case a strong deterrent sentence is necessary to bring you into line and to send out warning to other like minded people.

I sentence you to eight years imprisonment in hard labour less one year and one and half month in custody. You serve the balance of 6 years 10 months and 2 weeks.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutors

Lawyer for the Prisoners: Public Solicitors