State v Niofa [1999] PGNC 73; N1908 (12 August 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1908

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 513 OF 1999
THE STATE
AGAINST
STEVEN NIOFA
(ACCUSED)

Goroka

Kirriwom J
16 June 1999
12 August 1999

Cases Cited

Gimble v The State (1988-89) PNGLR 271

Counsel

Mrs C. Ashton-Lewis for the State

Mr M. Apie’e for the Accused

12 August 1999

KIRRIWOM J: Steven Niofa was one of three youths who were armed with a shot-gun and held up the employees of Wills-PNG at the bottom of Barola Hill Komperi and stole from them cartons of cigarettes and other Wills products that they were taking to Kainantu for some promotional presentations. He pleaded guilty to the charge.

The facts are that at about 2 pm on 15th January 1999 Donald Selau and Ronnie Iwanga were driving to Kainantu with cigarettes and other Wills products on their salesmen business along the Okuk Highway. At the foot of the famous Barola Hill between Henganofi and Kainantu the prisoner and his two friends stepped onto the road in front of them and forced them to stop. With a shot-gun aimed at them and a bush-knife poised in readiness to strike left the two men had no choice but to comply. After emptying the vehicle of its contents the robbers disappeared into the bushes and Donald Selan and Ronnie Iwanga proceeded on their trip to Kainantu minus their products to sell. They reported to the Kainantu Police and the prisoner was subsequently arrested and charged.

The prisoner is a young man aged 24, single from Jurinofi village, Henganofi, Eastern Highlands Province. He is a village dweller with only Grade 1 education in 1988 that could not get him anywhere else except work his living like his parents and his grandparents in the same old ways that life has been for generations before him. His father had died and he has his old mother as the only parent to guide him along in his personal progression from one stage to another. He pleaded to the Court saying that it was not his character to be involved in such activities. He said he was influenced by peer pressure and expressed remorse for his actions.

In mitigation it was submitted I take into account the following factors:

1. &#H60; ea pl guedty

>

2. & Expressed rem/rse

3

3. ;&#16irstnder

er

4.&
.&ـ ـ No harm to the vict victims and no d no damagdamage to e to the vthe vehiclehicle except emptied of its contents.

5. & &ـ Coted with with Polh Police.

I accept all those mitigating ting factors pleaded on behalf of the prisoner and I take them into accounhis f. But nevertheless armed robbery is still a very very serious offence. As this is an aggravggravated robbery it carries a maximum of life imprisonment because the prisoner was not alone and that they were armed with dangerous weapons and used them to commit this offence. The general public is entitled to know and feel that the Court is not insensitive to the fears and the anxieties that the victims of robberies are subjected to in such crimes by being over-lenient in its sentences. Courts must uphold the law and be firm and tough where it is deserved. It is the duty of this Court to send the message loud and clear to everyone that public highways must be free of hindrances for motorists and pedestrians alike to use at anytime of the day and at any place and anywhere in the country. No one is supposed to feel afraid whilst travelling on the road anywhere because these infrastructural development such as public roads are intended only for conducting lawful business on them and not to be abused for criminal purposes.

In Gimble v The State (1988-89) PNGLR 271, robbery of a motor vehicle on the road has been categorised as the third most serious cases of aggravated robbery. It says that ‘where a group of first young offenders, carrying weapons, use the threat of violence to rob ... a sentence of five years imprisonment is appropriate in a contested case.’ It then goes on to say that a lesser sentence should be imposed in an uncontested case and that a heavier sentence of more than five years should be imposed where there are aggravating factors. These include use of violence, amount of money stolen and the position of trust created by special relationship of parties such as a manager or employee of a business robbing the victim who is the employer.

Gimble has been said to be out of date in recent times and I have echoed the same sentiments since being on the bench. But the principle therein is good law as it provides the guidelines that trial Courts use to determine the appropriate degrees of seriousness or gravity of the robbery before them. But the adjustment of sentences must accord with the current trends of development in all facets of life including hi-tech system used and the increasing number of such crimes.

The circumstances of the case before me place this robbery, although aggravated, at the lower end of the scale. While I accept those factors in mitigation of the offence advanced on behalf of the prisoner, I bear in mind that this is a prevalent offence and a deterrent sentence is called for. I therefore sentence the prisoner to five years imprisonment in hard labour. I deduct six months and three weeks for time spent in custody awaiting trial. He will therefore serve the balance of four years five months and one week.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutors

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitors