Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Geta [1988] PGNC 2; N655 (3 March 1988)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N655

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
-AGAINST-
BIWA GETA

Lae

Woods J
2-3 March 1988

SENTENCE - Armed Robbery - Mailbags containing cash being transferred by Bank.

Biwa Geta was found guilty of the armed robbery of the Air Niugini Cargo Shed at Lae of some mailbags containing K165,500-00 in cash which was being sent by Westpac Bank from Lae to Port Moresby through the mail.

ON SENTENCE

WOODS J: Biwa Gehis robbery is an r an robbery which affects a basic corner stone of the organisation of our modern society, namely our means ofunication. Mail bags play an important role in our society as a means of communication and and any interference with them causes untold confusion. All robberies are serious, all robberies involve threats and terror whether on the roads or in houses, but the mails have always have a special status in modern society, they are the very means of communication whether privately between people or for business. Without the mails our society as it is now organised just could not exist and thus as I have said the robbery of the mails hits at the very basis of our modern communication network and business organisation. The bank officer witness in this court has already indicated some of the difficulties and confusion that has resulted because of this very robbery. The banks in Papua New Guinea are having problems because they are unable to send cash around the country in the manner they’ve been able to do for many many years namely using the anonymity of the mails. I therefore must treat this particular robbery as a very serious robbery which requires the maximum penalty above the normal range given for robberies. The maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisoment, however we don’t impose life imprisonment but impose a term of years. A robbery of this nature must result in the highest term of years in the range of sentences applied. So in the circumstances I see no reason why a term of 12 years would not be an appropriate penalty. There has been no co-operation or mitigating circumstances for me to reduce the sentence or give any special consideration, there has been no help by you to the court both with respect of your case or to help the court with other offenders. Also there has been hardly any money recovered from this robbery. This therefore means that I can give very little regard to any character references given for you. Normally character references can help when there has been other mitigating circumstances, such as co-operation with the court and the authorities. Therefore, I am unable to reduce the penalty that I think is appropriate for this case, nor am I able to consider a suspension or a bond.

I therefore sentence you to twelve years imprisonment with hard labour. I will allow four months off that twelve years for Remand Custody to date and that means there are eleven years eight months to serve.