State v Mekori [1999] PGNC 64; N1946 (29 June 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1946

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 960 OF 1998
THE STATE
-VS-
KORAK MEKORI

Kimbe

Sakora J
19-20 November 1998
29 June 1999

Counsel

Mr Gah for the State

Mr Kari for the Defence

SENTENCE

29 June 1999

SAKORA J: You appeared before me on 19 November 1998 charged with the serious indictable offence that on 27 May 1998 at Laleki settlement near Kimbe you stole from another person, Daniel Tiko, with actual violence money in the amount of K400.00 cash, the property of John and Dianne Gawi.

The matter went to trial, after which I found you guilty as charged and convicted you of armed robbery. On the very serious question of punishment for your offence, I have had the benefit of hearing both yourself and your lawyer, as well as the lawyer for the State.

In your Allocatus you were primarily concerned with the plight of your family and your traditional obligations regarding the death and burial of your brother. You are a single 19 year old man who completed grade 10 secondary education in 1997. At the time of the offence you were living with your parents at the Laleki settlement near Kimbe. The family is originally from Silemona village in the Pindiu district of Morobe Province.

You were arrested the same evening of the offence and had, therefore, been in custody for 5 months, 3 weeks before your appearance before me for the trial. At the time of your trial you were serving a sentence imposed by the District Court.

The facts surrounding this offence as I have found established by the State beyond reasonable doubt are summarised as follows. On the afternoon in question about 5.00 pm you went to the trade store owned by the husband and wife named in the indictment and asked the store-keeper, Daniel Tiko, for a packet of cigarettes. The store-keeper waited for you to hand over the money for the cigarettes. But you did not, and insisted on the packet to be handed over to you.

When the victim, the store-keeper, refused your demand you swore at him and threw a glass (coffee) jar at him. Fortunately for him the jar missed connection and it shattered against the wall and pieces fell to the floor. You then scrambled over the counter and forced yourself into the store where the victim was. You physically assaulted him and then stole the day’s sales takings totalling K400.00 in cash, after which you gained exit through a small hole under and beside the counter. Once outside you picked up some stones and threw these back at the store building.

In considering an appropriate sentence for your offence, the Court has been mindful of the prevalence of this type of offences, which have escalated to very serious and dangerous levels in the last decade or so. This escalation has been accompanied also by the sophistication in the planning and execution of the robberies, and the invariable random violence. There is great and constant concern in the general law-abiding community about the immediate and long-term effects of these offences.

Needless to say, these offences are very disruptive and destabilising of lives and activities of ordinary people, as well as those of business and professional people and organisations, not to mention those of government officials and organisations. Your offence is, therefore, yet another contributory factor to the general unease, fear, apprehension and concern in the community.

The Court notes also that your offence was directed at the people you knew quite well who lived in your own community, and at a facility operated for the immediate convenience and benefit of the entire settlement community. The value of the stolen goods or property is always a pertinent consideration. So that, whilst the amount of K400.00 cash may not appear huge to others, it nevertheless is a large sum of money for ordinary village and settlement people trying to make a living from a trade-store.

The Court must take into account also the fact that, as well as violence being threatened, it was offered by the throwing of the glass jar at the victim and assaulting him soon after that. Whilst the jar did miss its target, it nevertheless was offered, and it would have been sheer luck that the jar missed contact with body. It has to be finally noted as matters aggravating the circumstances that you expressed no remorse for your offence, either to the owners of the store or the victim store-keeper. In this respect, there is also the fact that the K400.00 in cash was never recovered and returned to the owners.

In the exercise of my sentencing discretion the preceding aggravating factors have obviously to be balanced or contrasted against those matters or factors tending to mitigate the offence, or its commission. And apart from the fact that you are a young first offender, no other of any consequence or pertinence can be found in your case.

The offence of armed robbery is a very serious matter indeed, for some of the reasons I have adverted to already. This seriousness is reflected in the nature and extent of the punishment the law prescribes. The offence attracts the maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

It is, therefore, the sentence of this Court that you be imprisoned for a period of 7 years IHL. This sentence is, by law, reduced to 5 years 7 months to take due account of the time you have spent in custody awaiting your trial. In the further exercise of my sentencing discretion, I deduct a further period of 6 months, being the period spent upon the deferral of your sentencing that had been scheduled for December 1998.

Thus, you now are ordered to serve the balance of 5 years 1 month IHL.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor