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

State v Charles [2001] PGNC 29; N2187 (17 October 2001)

N2187

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1146 of 1999

THE STATE

-V-

MAX CHARLES, TONY STEVEN
AND DAUDI CHARLES

ALOTAU: KANDAKASI, J.
2001: 16h & 17th October[*]

CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offence - Armed robbery - Gang robbery of a hotel - Identification by facial recognition - Part of item stolen in robbery leading to arrest recovered - Return of guilty verdict against two of the accused - Criminal Code 386 (1)(2)(a) and (b).

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Armed robbery - Robbery of hotel by an armed gang - First time offenders - No other good mitigating factors - Conviction after a trial - Offence on the increase so sentences also need to be increased to correspond to that increase for personal and general deterrence - Sentencing discretion under section 19 of the Criminal Code is not to be restricted by principles such as no "quantum leap."

Cases cited:

John Beng v. The State [1977] PNGLR 115
David Kandakason v. The State (1998) SC558.
The State v. Raphael Kimba Aki (unreported judgement delivered 26/01/01) N2039
The State v. Eddie Peter (No.1) (Unreported and unnumbered delivered on the 12th of October 2001) CR 1446 of 1998.
Gimble v. The State [1988-89] PNGLR 27
The State v. Jimmy Yasasa Lep (unreported judgement) N 1495.
In The State v. Abel Airi (unreported judgement delivered 28/11/00) N2007

The State v. Nickson Pari (No.2) (unreported judgement 10/01/01) N2033

The State v. Eddie Peter (unreported and unnumbered judgement delivered on the 12th of October 2001) CR 1446 of 1998
The State v. James Donald Keimou (unreported and unnumbered judgement delivered on 12th October 2001) CR 430 of 1999
Andrew Uramani & 4 Others v. The State [1996] PNGLR 287
Thomas Waim v. The State (unreported judgement) SC519

Counsel:

K. Popeu for the State
D. Kari for the Accused

17th October, 2001

DECISION ON VERDICT

KANDAKASI, J: You all pleaded not guilty to one count of armed robbery contrary to section 386(1), (2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code ("the Code"). The offence is alleged to have been committed on the 1st May 2000 at the Veawa Melanesian Hotel (the "Hotel"), here in Alotau. The State alleges that you were armed with one pistol, one factory made shotgun, one home made gun and one knife, all being dangerous weapons. After holding up the Hotel employees, you made off with its cash register, K250.00 cash and a number of alcoholic spirits and wines ("drinks"). The State alleges the total of the cash and value of all of the items stolen is K1,906.00

The only issue you take and hence the trial was the question of your identification as the offenders. There is no issue on all the other allegations and or elements of the offence.

The State’s Evidence

The State admitted into evidence with your consent, a letter dated 2nd May 2000 written by Conrad Holland (exhibit "A"). This piece of evidence states that an armed robbery took place at the Hotel on the 1st of May 2000 at about 7:30pm. It then lists the items stolen in the hold-up which included a cash register or till and a "Black Marlin X (750ml) bottle of wine and K250.00 in cash.

Your respective records of interviews conducted with the police were also admitted into evidence with your consent as exhibits "B" for Max Charles, exhibit "C" for Tony Steven and exhibit "D" for Daudi Charles. Apart from confirming that a record of interview was conducted for each of you, there is no further evidence from these records of interview because you simply refused to answer any of the questions asked and chose to remain silent.

The State then called a number of witnesses who gave oral evidence. The first to be called was Mathew Moses, a policeman with Alotau police. This witness said he was on duty in the night at the Alotau police station on the 1st of May 2000. Between 7:00 and 7:30 pm he received a telephone call from the Hotel. The caller reported of an armed hold up at the Hotel where the hotel’s cash register and some hard stuff (alcoholic drinks) were stolen. He notified his fellow duty officer, Constable, Max Irofe and the two of them proceeded to the Hotel.

When the witness and his colleague got there, they found out that the robbers had already escaped. Only some staff of the Hotel was there. They then took the names and particulars of the witnesses and returned to the police station. Once at the police station, the witness made an entry of the crime and continued with his normal duties at the police station.

At about 2:00 am the next day, a nephew of a policeman, Junior Samson, arrived at the station with a green wine bottle. He says he got the bottle off from the policeman’s nephew and worked out that, that bottle could be one of those stolen from the Hotel and asked the policeman’s nephew. "Where did you get this bottle of wine from?" The answer to that was, he got it off from one of the boys at Misima Barracks (police) here in Alotau. He then got details of the place where the boys were and got into a police vehicle and asked the driver to head straight to that place. When he got there, he saw Tony Steven, who he was able to identify or recognise because of him being brought to the police station on previous occasions for minor offences, with two others he could not identify talking to another policeman. There were other youths further up on red hill. When those youths saw the police vehicle he was in, they started running away. The other two youths with Tony Steven also ran away into a compound through a bamboo patch. After giving them a chase, he caught one of them. He recognised that person to be Max Charles because he had on earlier occasions arrested him for being drunk and disorderly. Based on his knowledge of Max Charles he says he asked him upon catching him and asking him to stand up, "Is that you Max?

He and the other policeman then drove further up on red hill. On their return he saw in the vehicle light Tony Steven and the other two youths with him. Upon seeing the vehicle’s light they all ran into the darkness. Him and his colleague gave chase to them but were unable to catch any of them. So they return to the police station with only Max Charles.

At the police station, he asked Max if he was drunk, to which Max replied in the negative. But the witness could see that Max was drunk. Max than told him that, Tony Steven and some other boys put a knife on his neck and told him to be a spy. Then those boys went to his (Max’s) compound and from there they were drinking hard stuff, wine. When asked, Max also told him that he was given only two glass of wine and he drank them. On further questioning, Max also told him that, Tony Steven was amongst those who were drinking the hard stuff and that all of the other boys were from Gadisu and Marriawette.

Thereafter he locked Max up for the CID section to takeover and filed a crime report based on details obtained from him. Constable Jeffrey Warriupa took over from there, carried out the necessary investigations and formerly charged Max.

This witness positively identified both Max Charles and Tony Steven. They were identified by their respective names picking them out correctly in Court by reference to their clothing and position in the dock. In addition to this, the prosecution through this witness, identified and admitted into evidence a green Black Marlin brand wine marked has exhibit "E," which was quarter way empty.

The State’s second witness was Constable Gamani Maika. He says he was asleep in his house at the Misima Police Barracks around 11:30 pm when he was suddenly awakened by loud music and singing by a group of drunkards numbering about 5, walking on the road. He got out of bed and went out to the road and told them to keep their noise down and walk away quietly. They complied but as soon as they reached a junction, they called back and said to him "Yu kaikai kan" (You eat vagina). This angered him and caused him to run after the youths.

Two of his colleagues joined him by then. The witness was a bit slower in the chase but one of his colleagues was faster than he was. His colleague caught one of the youths, while the rest escaped into red hill. At the time of apprehending the youth, Junior Samson got hold of a long neck hard stuff (strong alcoholic drink). So the witness told Junior Samson to take it to the police station and get police help, while he continued to go after the youths. Then one of the youths that he identified as Tony Steven appeared from where he was hiding and said to him, "Boss we are innocent, the boys you were chasing ran up red hill." He was able to identity that person as Tony Steven because he sometimes drinks with the policemen.

Soon thereafter, a police vehicle arrived and he got on leaving the two boys behind believing their claim of innocence. He and those in the police vehicle drove up red hill and on the way they saw three of the youths who upon seeing the vehicle lights, ran away into the darkness. So they stopped the vehicle and gave chase to the youths and caught one of them while the other two ran away. The one that was caught was taken to the police where he was eventually charged.

Prior to the arrest, this witness did not know the name of the person that was caught after the chase. After the arrest however, he came to learn of his name as Max Charles. Then in Court the witness was able to identify Max Charles by name, the colour of his shirt and in relation to the other accused in the dock. He also confirmed that Max was drunk when he was caught. He identified exhibit "E" as the bottle taken from the drunken youths and sent to the police station through Junior Samson inclusive of its brand name.

The third witness for the State was Melika Dickson. She was employed at the time of the robbery by the Hotel as its kitchen supervisor. Whilst she was working in the Hotel’s kitchen, a man came looked in and walked back. He returned the next minute, this time with another man and they said good night to her and walked back. She does not know their names but was able to see their faces although their sight lasted about a second or so.

As they walked back, she had a feeling something was wrong. Just about that moment, she heard a sound of a bottle break in the bar area. So she went to investigate. She then heard a voice saying "It’s a hold up" so she stood where she was and look out and saw a man standing on top of the bar table and heard him say, it is a hold up and they wanted money. Then they got the cash register and escaped through the gate.

She says she saw about 6 man involved in the robbery. The robbery lasted about 3 minutes. She was neither able to see the faces of the two that went to the kitchen and said good night to her amongst the 6 robbers nor was she able to see the faces of the others.

Sometime after the robbery, she was asked to go to the police station and see if she could see the faces of the two persons she saw during the night of the robbery. She did turn up at the police station and identified the faces she saw during the night of the robbery. In court she identified those faces as that of Max Charles and Tony Steven in the dock by point to them.

The fourth State witness was a Timothy Anifuta. He was at the Hotel during the time of the robbery as an employee. He was however of no help to the prosecution because although he did speak of the robbery, he was not able to identify anyone as he was unable to see and recall a face.

The State then closed its case. As soon as that was done, the defence counsel made a no case submission for the accused, Daudi Charles. The State correctly conceded to that application. This was on the basis of no evidence establishing the charge against him. I upheld the submission, dismissed the charge against him and had him acquitted.

This left the two of you and the both of you went into evidence in your defence.

Defence Evidence

Max Charles went in first and gave a sworn testimony. He said he was at his house which is about 25 meters away from the Hotel, with both his parents having his dinner about 7:00 pm, which is about the time the offence is alleged to have occurred. After that he says, he left the house and went and sold his betel nut on the side of the street. That was about 8:00 pm. He says he did not know of a robbery taking place at the Hotel.
As he was selling his betel nuts, a group of about 8 man came and sat about seven meters away from where he was. He neither knew any of these men nor had he ever come across them before. Yet he says, he came to deal with them in the manner that is soon to be mentioned in exchange of an alcoholic drink they gave him. A while later, one of them approached him and asked him for a smoke. He gave half of a mutrus stick and that person rewarded him with a one-litre coke bottle. He started to drink its contents and found out that it contained hard alcoholic drink and he continued to drink happily seizing on the opportunity. As a result of drinking the alcohol in the coke bottle he become very drunk. A little later, the group of men asked him to find more smoke for them and he did.

Sometime later, the men asked him if he knew of a short cut to the PTB to the beach. He answered yes and led them onto the short cut through Misima Police Barracks (here in Alotau). When they got in to the Police Barracks, they started singing and make a lot of noise. That caused the police to chase them. He ran for red hill.

When he reached red hill, he stopped and stood there. Then three people came toward him. At the same time, a police vehicle appeared and fired a gunshot and the three people ran away. As for him, he ran into a drain nearby. Police found him out and caught him. They then took him to the police station.

At the police station, he was subjected to a number of beatings, his Constitutional rights were not given and was continuously asked many questions, which he did not understand. They asked him about the robbery and he told them that he did not know anything about it but they forced him to say yes and he did. Then he was locked up in the cells.

He denies being identified out of an identification parade but confirms a record of interview being conducted. In his record of interview he answered all the material questions typically with "I will remain silent." He says he chose to remain silent because he knew nothing about the robbery and in the exercise of his constitutional right to do so.

Tony Steven says he was on the material date and time at Paulus’ house watching video. After that about 1:00 am he left for his house. While he was walking through red hill, he saw four men run toward him from behind. He got frightened and hid himself in the dark and saw the men run up toward red hill. He then came out of his hiding.

When he came out of his hiding, he saw a policeman and that policeman asked him, who are those people that ran up. He answered, "I am an innocent man here." So the policeman left him there and joined another policeman and they ran toward red hill. He then went home and slept.

The next day he came into Alotau town. When he was at then Fifitat Trading and now Stop and Shop shop, three policemen apprehended him and took him to the police cells. He was subsequently charged and taken to Giligili CIS. Before that, a record of interview was conducted (exhibit "C").

In the record of interview, he gave almost the same story has the evidence in his oral testimony but with some variation. He identified one of the persons he met on his way as Max Charles. He says Max Charles and the two other men with him at the time were carrying some bottles of hard stuff (strong alcoholic drinks). When they saw him, they asked him to go and drink the hard stuff with them and they did. They were drinking close to the PTB Pool.

He also says, when the police caught Max Charles he was so scared. So he hid himself. He was shown exhibit "E," the Black Marline brand wine and he identified that as one of the wine he and his friends were drinking when the police came and disturbed them. He denies having any knowledge or a part in the robbery.

Although he said in the earlier part of his oral testimony that the statement he gave to police was correct, he later changed that, when he was cross-examined on the obvious inconsistencies in his evidence. He said the evidence he was giving in Court was true. He suggested police put in words he did not say in the record of interview. This is despite having read, understood and signing the record of interview as being true and correct in every respect and consenting to its admission into evidence.

Assessment of evidence and finds of fact

I was carefully observing both of you in Court, in the dock as the State witnesses came and testified against you and when you took the stand. You failed to impress upon me to be truthful witnesses. This is strengthened by a number of other factors. First, you claim in your evidence, Max Charles, that at about the time when the robbery took place, you were at your parents’ house and you, Tony Steven, claim that you were at Paulus’ house watching video. You gave no notice of an alibi and failed to call any evidence to support you on that. Then for Tony Steven, you lied under oath in relation to what you told the police and the Court. You gave no reliable basis for this Court to accept your claim that what you told the police was not true. In any case, you have shown to this court that you can tell lies. As for Max Charles, your evidence goes against any logic and common sense. If indeed the men you were drinking with were total strangers, you would not have easily left your betel nut selling and gone with them. Besides you said you were very drunk after you had drunk the hard stuff in the one litre coke bottle. Therefore, you were in no better state to lead other people in the dark through a short cut. Further, if your house was only 25 meters away from the Hotel where the robbery took place, you had reason to know about the robbery but you said you had no idea until the police questioned you about it. Furthermore, I note that although you were within your Constitutional right to remain silent, you failed to make use of the opportunity presented to tell the police your story so they could go after the real offenders if you were not involved but you refused to do that. That meant there was no other person to go after in so far as the police were concerned because they caught you. For these reasons, I find your evidence unreliable and place little or no weight except in areas where you corroborate the State’s case.

As for the State’s witnesses, there is no basis for me to question their integrity as independent and credible witnesses. I am not able to find any thing in their evidence that runs contrary to any logic or common sense. Instead I got the clear impression that they were telling the truth. I therefore, accept their evidence and I will make a finding on the issue presented based on their evidence.

As noted, the issue for trial was one of identification. Mr. Kari of Counsel for you two referred me to the case of John Beng v. The State [1977] PNGLR 115, for the relevant principles on the issue of identification and argued that you were not identified as the perpetrators beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, I should dismiss the charge against you. He submitted the witness Melika Dickson who identified you as the persons she saw at the Hotel only had a second’s glance at persons she saw. She has not seen you before and this is the first time she has come into contact with you. In relation to the other witnesses’ identification of you, he says a substantial period of time lapsed and as such, they could not be connected to the robbery. Implied in that submission is that, that was because a person who was masked and not identified as either of you committed the alleged offence.

Relying on the same case, Mr. Popeu of Counsel for the State argues that the evidence produced by the State proves beyond any reasonable doubt your identity as the persons who committed the robbery. Therefore, he argues that you should be found guilty as charged.

I asked Mr. Kari as to what your submissions were in relation to the obvious inconsistencies between your records of interviews and your brief oral sworn testimony and the evidence in the record of interview itself particularly in relation to Tony Steven. He submitted the inconsistencies are there and left it to the Court to draw whatever inferences the Court can draw from them.

The case cited, was a decision of the Supreme Court and it sets out the principles and or factors a court must take into account on the issue of identity before reaching a verdict. In that case the issue before the trial judge and before the Supreme Court on appeal was also one of identity. The Court at page 122- 123 said these:

It has long been recognized that there are dangers inherent in eye-witness identification evidence. The Court was referred to a number of authorities, the latest of them being a decision of the House of Lords in Raymond Turnbull & Ors... In that case guidelines were laid down as to the manner in which identification evidence should be treated. The following points (as set out in the headnote to the report) were made:

‘Whenever the case against an accused person depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence allege to be mistaken, the trial judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting in reliance on the correctness of the identification. He should make some reference to the possibility that a mistaken witness could be a convincing one and that a number of such witnesses could all be mistaken. Provided such a warning is given, no particular form of words need be used.

Further, the trial judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made ...

Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger; but even when the witness is purporting to recognize someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made. All these matters go to the quality of the identification evidence. When the quality is good, the jury can be safely left to assess the value of the identifying evidence even though there is no other evidence to support: Provided always, however, that an adequate warning has been given about the special need for caution.

When the quality of the identifying evidence is poor — i.e. a fleeting glance or a longer observation made in difficult conditions — the judge should then withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification.

(Emphasis added)

These principles have been consistently recognised as correct and have been applied in many cases since the decision was published. A recent example of that is David Kandakason v. The State (1998) SC558, a decision of the Supreme Court and more recently my own decision in The State v. Raphael Kimba Aki (unreported judgement 26/01/01) N2039.

In line with these authorities and principles, I warn myself that it may be unsafe to proceed to convict you on the evidence before me unless I find the evidence produced by the State is convincing beyond any reasonable doubt. Even if I find the evidence convincing, I may be mistaken to take it that, that is proving beyond any reasonable doubt. I must therefore be careful not to arrive at a decision that may not be correct unless I have carefully considered all of the evidence before me including your own sworn testimonies.

The evidence of, all except the last State witness as well as the record of interviews between the police and Tony Steven are relevant. The State’s first witness, Mathew Moses identified both of you following the police chase. Max Charles, you were caught at the place where they were chasing, while Tony Steven you admitted to coming into contact with the police. Then an eyewitness who positively identified both of you out of some other men at the police station, saw both of you at the scene of the crime. You both tried to raise an alibi but failed to call any evidence to support you on that and before that you failed to give notice to the State in accordance with the rules, for the State to check that out. Part of the property stolen was recovered from the two of you or the group of men or boys you were drinking with during the night of the robbery. The evidence or the explanations you give do not go down well with any logic or common sense. There is ample authority for the proposition that in assessing evidence in this sort of cases, the courts must take a common sense and logic approach. I just referred to one of those authorities in the decision I delivered here in the matter of The State v. Eddie Peter (No.1) (Unreported and unnumbered) CR 1446 of 1998, delivered on the 12th of October 2001 at page 7.

In addition to the above, I note also that, you failed to cross-examine the State witness on the issue for trial. No doubt whatsoever was cast against the States witnesses evidence. Likewise no suggestion was put to the State’s witnesses that they could have been mistaken in their identification of the two of you.

Considering all of these factors, only one conclusion or inference is present to my mind beyond any reasonable doubt. The inference is that, you were involved in the robbery of the Hotel as alleged. I therefore, find both of you guilty on the charge against the two of you. I therefore return a verdict of guilty against the two of you and proceed to convict you both on the charge of armed robbery contrary to s.386 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.

DECISION ON SENTENCE

I have today found both of you guilty on one count of armed gang robbery. That is an offence prescribed by section 386(1)(2) of the Criminal Code. It carries a maximum of life imprisonment as its penalty subject to the Court’s sentencing discretion under section 19 of the Code.

As I have just said in The State v. Edward Toude & Ors, CR. No. 964 of 2001 (judgement delivered on 18/10/01) No. 2, from page 3 - 6, the Supreme Court in the much-celebrated case of Gimble v. The State [1988-89] PNGLR 27, set out the relevant sentencing guidelines for armed robbery cases. On a plea of not guilty by a young first offender carrying weapons and threatening violence the starting sentence for robbery of a:

(a) Dwelling/house is 7 years;
(b) bank is 6 years;
(c) store, hotel, club, vehicle on the road or the like is 5 years; and
(d) person on the street is 3 years.

Where there are features of aggravation such as actual violence, the amount stolen or its value is large, or where the robber is in a position of trust towards the victim, an higher sentence may be justified. Of course, a plea of guilty may justify a lower sentence.

I also noted in that case that, it is now accepted that these guidelines especially the tariffs are considered well out dated: see The State v. Jimmy Yasasa Lep (unreported judgement) N 1495. In The State v. Abel Airi (unreported judgement delivered 28/11/00) N2007, I examined the sentencing trends in armed robbery cases on a guilty plea starting with the Gimble (supra) and ended up with the Supreme Court decision in Tau Jim Anis & Others v. The State SC642. In that case, the Supreme Court increased the guidelines set by the Gimble (supra) case for armed robbery cases falling in the third category to 8 years on an appeal against a sentence of 10 years by the National Court. That was a case of planned robbery of a factory with actual violence involving just over K20,000.00. There were mitigating factors like young first offenders and a guilty plea.

Further, I noted in the same case that nearly in all of the cases to date, the Courts have expressed hope or considered either expressly or by implication that the sentences they were imposing would deter the offenders or other would be offenders from committing such offences. Unfortunately, as nearly all judgements to date on this kind of offences acknowledge, the kinds of sentences that have been imposed to date have failed to meet that hope. The effect of that is as I said in The State v. Nickson Pari (No.2) (unreported judgement 10/01/01) N2033, offences such as "armed robberies are on the increase." Yet as I noted in The State v. Eddie Peter (unreported and unnumbered judgement delivered on the 12th of October 2001) CR 1446 of 1998, and The State v. James Donald Keimou (unreported and unnumbered judgement delivered on 12th October 2001) CR 430 of 1999, the Courts have failed in my view to also increase sentences to correspond with the increase in the offences. Although I said this in the context of two different offences, they equally apply to armed robbery cases.

Most of the sentences in armed robbery cases appear to attract sentences of merely 8 years or 10 years. This in, my view, does not compare and or reflect easily to the pain and suffering both physically and psychologically such frightening experiences and loss, offences like armed robbery or rape brings upon, the immediate victims and the society at large. Logically, if all it would take is a few short years, one could afford to commit such serious crimes because the offender would know that he would get away lightly. This in my view is partly contributing to the increase in these kinds of offences. Parliament after having considered all things prescribed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is the Courts that have started with sentences such as 5 years per Gimble’s guidelines and 6 years with 2 years suspended as in Andrew Uramani & 4 Others v. The State [1996] PNGLR 287, by the Supreme Court because of the principle of no disparity of sentences between co-accused.

I repeat what I also said in the other cases in this circuit that in my view, the Courts have been unnecessarily restricted in the proper exercise of their sentencing discretion by principles such as no "disparity of sentence between co-accused" as is state in Andrew Uramani & 4 Others v. The State (supra) and no "quantum leap" as stated in the Tau Jim Anis v. The State (supra) and Thomas Waim v. The State (unreported judgement) SC519. Such concepts as these, as I also said in The State v. Eddie Peter (supra) and The State v. James Donald Keimou (supra) has no statutory prohibition against say a judge imposing a sentence that represents a "quantum leap" or disparity of sentences. It is the courts that have come up with these concepts in the exercise of their sentencing discretion. I also observed that the application of such principles do not reflect the particular circumstances or the particular facts of a case. This inevitably allows for ignorance or paying leap service to the purpose of sentencing in criminal cases such as, deterrence and retribution.

Offenders have taken advantage of such principles, which as far as they are concerned, means a shorter term of years regardless of the many calls for stiffer penalties to correspond with the particular circumstances of the offences they commit. Offenders are now becoming more sophisticated as was shown in what has become known as the "failed millennium robbery" in Port Moresby just before the turn of the Millennium. This in my view calls for the Courts to be prepared to depart from the traditional methods of sentencing with a view to substantially increasing sentences to send stronger messages to offenders that, they now stand the risk of much higher or severe sentences.

In line with the views I have just expressed, I sentenced the prisoners in The State v. Edward Toude & Ors (Supra), to a term of 20 and 17 years respectively after a trial. That was for the robbery of a ship, which I found to be on the higher or more serious category of robbery cases. Each of the accused did not actually commit the offence but facilitated its commission in various ways. They were all first time offenders.

In your case, both of you pleaded not guilty to the charge. This therefore necessitated a trial with the State calling a number of witnesses to prove the charge against you and they did. Both of you are first time offenders because you have no prior convictions, although there is suggestion of one of you being caught for being drunk and disorderly in public. Both of you were part of a gang that was armed with firearms and other weapons which were used to commit the robbery. Some cash and other properties of the Hotel were stolen at gunpoint.

Hotels are places in which tourists and other visitors to a area temporarily lodge. They live their homes and families and for the period of their stay in, the hotels and can be as their homes. Just like a person in a house, they do not expect people like you to turn up with guns and steal from the hotels or their guests. I am therefore, of the view that, the robbery of a hotel or a motel or a guesthouse to be in the same category as a dwelling house.

Just as is the case with dwelling houses, it is now however, becoming a common place for robberies at hotels, motels or guesthouses. They are scaring of tourist or other people who wish to come to our country and stay in hotels for fear of being robbed at gunpoint. Not many places in the world today do people get robbed and scared like that, so these people go to safer places. This inevitably means we miss out in much needed in flow of foreign or otherwise a good level of spending by a good number of people. It is no doubt leading to the lack or a drastic reduction in the level of any business or economic activity in the country. Every one in society is feeling the consequence of these today. There is not enough goods and services in the country today and price of getting one is very expensive for the ordinary person in the country.

Taking all of these into account, I consider a sentence of 13 years is appropriate rather than the maximum prescribed by Parliament of life imprisonment. This is of course, reflective of the fact that both of you are first time offenders and are relatively young. I have also taken your respective family backgrounds into account but I find no aspect of that going in favour or in your mitigation. Apart from being first time offenders, you have no other factor in your mitigation. I consider that it was the intend of Parliament that unless an offender, like you two, is able to demonstrate a case for a sentence much lower than the prescribed maximum, the maximum should be imposed. You should therefore, consider yourselves fortunate that I have decided not to impose the maximum of life imprisonment or a term closer to that. I feel constraint to give the sentence I have just mentioned simply to avoid a substantial quantum leap from the sentences that have been imposed to date, which have failed to meet the desire of deterring other would be offenders like you from offending.
________________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Accused: The Public Solicitor

^[*] Due to a power failure I was not able to read out and make available to the parties this judgements on verdict and sentence which were then in draft. I delivered the judgements orally in summary form in Alotau. I promised then to finalize them and have them delivered to the parties. This is the final and detailed version of the judgements.