State v Kinzong [2005] PGNC 22; N2942 (13 October 2005)

N2942

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 1013 OF 2005

THE STATE

-V-

HONENU KINZONG

LAE: KIRRIWOM, J

2005: 24th August & 13th October

Cases cited:
Tau Jim Anis & Ors -v- The State [1999] Unreported Supreme Court Judgment SC642
The State -v- Nogomo Wosepe, Zenang Qiqic & Heuteko Givengan [2005] Unreported National Court Judgment Cr. 620-622/2004 (19/8/05 – Finschafen)
Wena Lokorop & Anor -v- The State

Counsel:
N. Miviri for the State
S. Maliaki for the Accused

13th October 2005

KIRRIWOM, J: The prisoner Honenu Kinzong from Siririo village Finschafen Morobe Province appeared before the National Court sitting in Finschafen on circuit in August 2005 on one count of stealing with actual violence whilst in company of others and armed with dangerous weapons namely bush knives and home-made guns. He pleaded guilty to the charge.

The State alleged that the prisoner was amongst a group of people who were at Siriroi village on 3 March 2005 waiting to hold up motor vehicles travelling on Finschafen – Pindiu Road. About 3 pm a vehicle driven by one Nidi Boti drove up on its way to Pindiu. The prisoner and others jumped onto the road and blocked it from proceeding further with their guns. The driver stopped and after ordering the passengers out of the vehicle and ordering them to sleep on the ground, they searched the vehicle. Amongst the passengers was a businessman from Pindiu Maus Toping with supplies for his trade store. These goods were stolen from the vehicle as well as K1,500 in cash from Maus Toping and those on the vehicle. Total of cash and goods was K4,500 loss suffered.

After the robbery the vehicle proceeded to Pindiu but on the return journey reported the incident to the Police. The prisoner was actually recognized by the passengers as a local from the village and was named as a member of the gang. He went into hiding immediately after the robbery but was subsequently arrested. His involvement in the robbery is freely admitted in his own interview with the Police.

This offence carries a maximum of life imprisonment. Under the Gimble guidelines this robbery falls in the third category which is robbery of motor vehicle on a highway with a starting sentence of 8 years on a trial and less in a plea of guilty or where there are exceptional mitigating circumstances since Tau Jim Anis & Ors –v- The State.

Apart from the prevalence factor which I will allude to in detail shortly, this is not a worst case of robbery in the sense that although firearm and other dangerous weapons such as bush-knife were used to threaten the passengers and the driver, no none was physically harmed apart from being physically abused by being forced or ordered to be on the ground face down as the robbers frisked or searched them. In reality there can be no worst of robbery from another because all cases of robbery are dangerous and life threatening. When firearms or other dangerous weapons are used to intimidate or threaten anyone into submission, it is only a matter of common sense on the part of the victim that determines the nature of that robbery in the making. If he does not handle it well, it could become violent and nasty or it could be over in a few minutes with the victims left poorer and hurt and devastated than they were before the robbery.

But in this case, despite the fact that a passenger in the front cabin was almost cut with a bush knife when it was swung at the window of the cabin on the off-sider’s side, nobody was injured. This is all that can be said in their favour.

Otherwise, this offence is a very prevalent one on this particular stretch of the road. I made mention of this fact in some of the earlier cases including The State –v- Nogomo Wosepe, Zenang Qiqic and Heuteko Givengan [2005] Unreported National Court Judgment Cr. 620-622/04 (19/8/05 – Finschafen). That was a robbery case that turned bad when a victim of robbery was shot along the same Finschafen – Pindiu Highway near Hapohondong village. The prisoners were sentenced to 20 years for unlawful killing of an innocent traveller of the highway.

Hold-ups along the highway are hindering progress and development, apart from denying people in the remote districts to supplies and services that are badly needed. Supply of medicines to rural aid posts, school materials and food supplies to local trade stores are severely hampered when incidences of robbery remain high and nobody but the grass roots people suffer the most. These are the fundamental considerations by the Court when imposing punishment on the offenders because the Courts have constitutional duty to restore public confidence in the institutions of the State in maintaining a secure, safe and just society for all.

The victim who suffered substantial loss in this robbery was Maus Toping the local trade store operator who was robbed of his store cargoes and K1,500 in cash. He recovered none of the goods back. However the congregation of Selilio paid K1,000 in compensation to the complainant.

In mitigation of penalty I was urged to consider the prisoner’s plea of guilty, lack of priors, early admissions in the record of interview, cooperation with police, expression of remorse and no injuries upon the victim and some restitution made. I take these factors into account

The prisoner is a young man aged 21 years old. He is first born of 2 children. His father lives in the village, mother deceased. He completed Grade 10 at Dregerhafen High School in Finschafen in 2003 and was accepted to do Grade 11-12 at Bugandi Secondary School but due to school fees problem he did not make it.

Those who commit serious crimes like robbery where dangerous weapons are used must not expect non-custodial punishment. Even before embarking on idea of committing robbery, it must not be forgotten that there is no such thing as good behaviour bond or non-custodial punishment in robbery offences.

Prison sentence is almost automatic in robbery cases unless very exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. This is clearly stated by the Supreme Court in Wena Lokorop & Anor. –v- The State. So before anyone decides to commit robbery, remember that thee is no other place to go except prison.

I have considered all the circumstances of this case. I am of the view that a strong deterrent sentence is necessary to send a strong warning to others as well as teach the prisoner himself that peace-loving people cannot continue to tolerate this type of violence perpetrated amongst them. It is time young people change their attitude and resort to more meaningful and productive way of making ends meet rather than bludge on other people’s hard earned efforts and hard work. It is today’s generation that can change the course of this country to a very prosperous one instead of being a beggar state as we are seen by the world.

I sentence the prisoner to sever years imprisonment in hard labour. I deduct 5 months 16 days for pre-trial custody. He serves the balance of 6 years 6 months and 14 days.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Defence: Public Solicitor