N4556

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1097 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

THE STATE
Plaintiff

AND:

TITUS MANAI
Defendant

Lae: Batari, J
2011: 15 February
23 March

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Armed robbery – robbery of motor vehicle – sentencing principles applied – plea – sentence of 10 years appropriate.

Cases Cited:

Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 365
PP v Don Hale (1998) SC 564 
Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC 642
Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759

Counsel:

J. Done, for the State
W. Dogura, for the Defence

SENTENCE

23 March, 2011

1. BATARI, J:  The prisoner was indicted on one count of armed robbery. He and his accomplices stole a motor vehicle by holding up the driver with a firearm and a bush-knife. This is his sentence following a guilty plea. 

2.	The short story supporting his offence is that, on 02/02/07 the victim Jacob Louis drove a TELIKOM (PNG) Limited motor vehicle namely, a white Toyota Land Cruiser Truck, registered No. BBW-895 to buy refreshments from 10 Mile Service Station convenient shop. When Jacob tried to drive off again, the prisoner with two others held him up with a .38 pistol and a bush knife. They forced him to surrender the car-key and stole the vehicle from him. Police intercepted the stolen vehicle shortly after the incident resulting in the arrest and detention of the offender.

3.	This is an aggravated robbery under s.386 (1) and (2)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. This penalty provision is a clear indicator of armed robbery being such a very serious offence that, offenders will expect to go to jail for a long time. The intention of Parliament as expressed through the prescribed maximum sentence is that convicted robbers should not be allowed to roam freely in the community.

4.	The life sentence is however not mandatory because of s.19 of the Criminal Code. A term of imprisonment may be imposed by the Court where it is warranted. The circumstances of each case will determine the final outcome of the sentence to be imposed.

5.	Guidelines that are in place and applied over the years have made the difficult task of sentencing a little easier in prescribing different categories of sentence and the applicable range for each category armed robbery. In Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 365, the Supreme Court identified three different sets or categories of aggravated robbery contrary to s 386 (2) and suggested guidelines which a sentencing authority should use to determine the outcome to be followed. In the first category, four types of armed robberies are classified for cases involving a plea of not guilty by first young offenders armed with weapons and threatening violence. These are:

(a)	robbery of a house a starting point of 7 years.
(b)	robbery of a bank, a starting point of 6 years.
(c)	robbery of a store, hotel, vehicle on the road and the like, a starting point of 5 years.
(d)	robbery of a person on the street, a starting point of 3 years. 

6.	The suggested term for robbery of a home in the first category was increased by three (3) years in the case of PP v Don Hale (1998) SC 564. The Supreme Court in Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC 642 in a case involving aggravated robbery in the third category by first time young offenders corrected what appeared to be a misleading and misapplication of Don Hale's case as laying down a blanket authority for robbery cases. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of 10 years to 8 years. In Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759 the court considered the previous Supreme Court decisions in Hale and Anis and agreed that a "three year increase denominator" should be applied for armed robbery in the third category. That meant the starting point was eight years. 

7.	So, in this case, where robbery involved a motor vehicle, the starting point is eight (8) years. This case is aggravated by:

(i)	use of a firearm and a bush-knife.
(ii)	actual violence was used though no injury is conceded.
(iii)	robbery was committed in full view and presence of others.
(iv)	robbery was committed in the company of others.

8.	In the offender's favor, I take into account from the offence:

(i)	the firearm was not discharged.
(ii)	no actual harm was done to the victim.
(iii)	the vehicle was recovered intact.
(iv)	the robbery was amateurish.
.
9.	I have also considered from the prisoner's antecedent, his background, and plea of guilty. In his allocutus, he expressed remorse and said he was previously employed with Angau General Hospital in the Maintenance Division. This employment, it seemed was secured after he escaped from custody. He also spoke of possible adverse effect of his absence on the welfare of his wife and children if he were sent to jail as he is the only bread-winner.

10.	This however does not help him because he did not think of his wife and children's welfare when he set out on his evil journey. His family will unfortunately suffer the same fate as families of convicted robbers do.

11.	The prisoner has pleaded guilty but I do not find much help to support that plea. His past record has little worth with the history a prior conviction by the National Court for an offence involving a motor vehicle in 1997. Details of that conviction are not before the Court though he does not take issue with the prior conviction. The offence was in connection with a motor vehicle and that is a relevant consideration on sentence in this case. It shows the prisoner has the propensity towards stealing vehicles and that he has obviously not learned from his prior conviction. On top of that, his record of escaping from custody shows his indifference to the rule of law and inclinations towards criminal activities.

12.	I have determined that the prisoner should be given a sentence that serves both the general and personal deterrence aspects of sentencing.

13.	He is sentence to ten years imprisonment. The aggregate term of one year, two months in custody is deducted. The effective term is eight years, five months IHL.

14.	I see no good reason to suspend the whole or part of the sentence.

_______________________________________________

Public prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused