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

State v Kopsy [1998] PGNC 51; N1829 (18 June 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1829

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 531 OF 1998

CR NO. 621 OF 1998
THE STATE
V
SAMUEL TONY KOPSY

Goroka

Sawong J
16 June 1998
18 June 1998

Case Cited

Gimble v The State [1988 - 89] PNGLR 271

Counsel

R. Johnson, for the State

J. Hasu, for the Accused

18 June 1998

SAWONG J: You were charged with one count of armed robbery and one count of escaping from lawful custody, offences which are contrary to s. 386 (2) and s. 139 of the Code. You pleaded guilty to both charges. The offence of armed robbery attracts a maximum term of life imprisonment, whilst the offence of escaping attracts a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment.

The facts of these charge are as follows. You were convicted and was serving a term of 7 years IHL at Bundaira CIS. On the 8 October 1997, you and some other prisoners broke out of the jail and escaped. Whilst you were on the run you together with a friend of yours committed the armed robbery at the KKB Renbo store at Kainantu. The facts of that robbery are as follows.

On 5 December 1997, at about half past four, you and a friend of yours went into the KKB Renbo store at Kainantu. After you went into the store, you and your friend then hide yourselves by going up and lying on the top of the large freezer units. You waited there and when the store was closed and the employees of the shop were cleaning up, you and your friend, armed with a bush knife and a small knife, went from section by section holding up the said employees. Then using a sticky tape, you and your friend tied up the hands of each employee at their backs. Whilst one of you kept watch over the victims, the other one using a crowbar and a pinchbar broke open the safe. You and your friend then stole cash money totalling K31,950.74 from the safe and then escaped, leaving the victims inside the shop.

You are a single man aged about 20 years old. Both of your parents are alive and living in Alotau. You have four sisters and you are the only boy in your family. You were educated to grade 8 at the Bumayong High School, Lae.

When I gave you an opportunity to speak to the Court, you told the court that you had nothing to say and would leave it to your lawyer to speak on your behalf.

She referred me to the case of Gimble v The State [1988 - 89] PNGLR 271. The Supreme Court in that case set out various sentencing guidelines for various different kinds of armed robbery cases. The Supreme Court there said there are basically four (4) different types of armed robbery cases. These are, robbery of a house, robbery of a bank, armed robbery of a store or a vehicle on the road and a street robbery. She told the court that your case would fall in the third category, that of armed robbery of store. She submitted that as you had pleaded guilty, that you had helped the police in recovering half of the money stolen together with other properties you had stolen, that none of the victims had actually been injured, a sentence of less than 5 years imprisonment should be imposed.

I accept that you have pleaded guilty. I also accept that you had co-operated with the police during their investigations and led them to the place where the money was recovered. I also note in that regard that you readily made admissions to the police about your own involvement. And so your plea of guilty before me to the two offences are consistent with your co-operation with the police. Therefore I consider your pleas to be a genuine one.

You have prior records of convictions which I must take into consideration. You have two prior convictions, one for armed robbery and the other one for escaping. For the armed robbery, you were convicted by the National Court in Lae on 13 May 1995 and was sentenced to 2 years IHL. On 13 March 1996, you were convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by the National Court in Lae for escaping.

In these circumstances, you cannot be treated as a first offender. You obviously have not learnt, from being sent to jail. It is quite clear to me that society needs to be protected from people like you. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the submission on the range of sentence made by your counsel.

In my view the fact that you prior convictions and sentences for armed robbery and escaping are aggravating factors, which calls for a higher sentence to be imposed on you. Except for the facts that you have pleaded guilty and co-operated with the police and readily making admissions, there are no other mitigating factors to be taken into your favour.

What has concerned me, is what is the appropriate sentence to be imposed in the circumstance of your cases. There is a further consideration as to whether the sentence should be made concurrent or cumulative, not only to the present two cases but also to the sentences which you were serving at the time you escaped.

The crime of armed robbery is serious, violent and prevalent crime. Therefore, in my view an immediate punitive and deterrent custodial sentence is called for.

You must understand that the two offences for which I have convicted you are two different offences. They are not related. But having said that, it is still up to the court to decide how you are to be sentenced.

In all the circumstances for the offence of armed robbery, you are sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in hard labour. For the offence of escaping you are sentenced to 5 years IHL. Even though the two offences are not related, nevertheless, I think that in all the circumstances of your case, if I were to make the sentences cumulative, you would be positively damaged. In the circumstances, I order that sentence of 5 years for the escape charge be made and served.

As you are already a prisoner serving time, there will be no deductions for the time spent in custody.

As the offences for which you are before this court are different from the ones you are serving, the term I have imposed shall be made cumulative.

I have considered the totalling principle in my view the total effective sentence is not excessive nor unreasonable. It follows that you must serve the following term I have imposed.

Lawyers for the Accused: Public Solicitor

Lawyers for the State: State Prosecutor