N10921

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 828 OF 2023

THE STATE

V

MECKELVIN KANAMAI

Of IAROMA VILLAGE, ANGORAM EAST SEPIK PROVINCE

Bulolo/Lae: Polume-Kiele J
2023: 4th August, 2nd, 5th, 10th, 13th & 24th October, 7th November,
2024: 7th February, 19th March, 6th June

CRIMINAL LAW - Plea of guilty - Sentence – armed robbery – s 386(1) (2) (a) (b) and (c ) – Criminal Code – Relevant considerations

Brief allegations

On 21 March 2022, between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. the prisoner, Meckelvin Kanamai in the company of a group of armed men went to Bulolo, Morobe Province in Papua New Guinea. They held up security guards of the PNG Forest Products, in front of the Bulolo BSP Bank and they stole money valued in the sum of K108, 034.67. At the time of stealing, they used actual violence on any person in order to obtain the thing stolen. At the time they stole from the security guards of the PNG Forest Products, the robbers were armed with homemade guns and bush knives and in the act of stealing the money, they stabbed one of the security guards on the hand, using a knife. 

Cases Cited:
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Thress Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC1017
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890
The State v Nelson [2005] N2844
Gimble v The State [1988] PNGLR 271 
The State v Liliura [2014] N5785
Ure Hane v the State [1984] PNGLR 105
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC564

Counsel:
Ms S Joseph, for the State
Mr. C Boku, for the Prisoner

SENTENCE

6th June 2024

1.	POLUME-KIELE J: On 5 October 2023, Ms Tamate of the Office of the Public Prosecutor presented an indictment charging the accused, Meckelvin Kanamai of one count of armed robbery with actual violence contrary to s 386 (1), (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act (Ch No 262). This offence attracts a penalty subject to s 19, imprisonment for life. 

2.	I must state at the outset that although, the accused had been charged with another offence of assault with intent to steal under s 384 of the Criminal Code, the indictment presented only related to the armed robbery charge under s 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code. 

3.	Consequently, the charge of assault with intent to steal under s 384 of the Criminal Code is pending before the Court. 

4.	This ruling relates only to the charge of armed robbery with actual violence contrary to s 386 (1), (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act (Ch No 262).

5.	 On 13 October 2023, he was arraigned. He pleaded guilty to the charge of one count of armed robbery with actual violence contrary to s 386 (1) (2) (a)(b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act (Ch No 262). 

6.	The State invoked s 7 (1) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act.

Penalty Provision

7.	The Charge of armed robbery – Section 386 states: 

“386.	 The Offence of Robbery

(1) 	A person who commits robbery is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(2)	If a person charged with an offence against Subsection (1)–

(a) 	is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or

(b) 	is in company with one or more other persons; or

(c) 	at, immediately before or immediately after, the time of the			robbery, wounds or uses any other personal violence to any			person,

he is liable subject to Section 19, to imprisonment for life”

8.	The State invoked s 7 (1) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act. This means that when an offence is committed, each of the following persons shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence and may be charged with actually committing it:
Division 2. – Parties to Offences.
“7. 	PRINCIPAL OFFENDERS.
(1) 	When an offence is committed, each of the following persons shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it: –
(a) 	every person who actually does the act or makes the omission that constitutes the offence.
(b)	every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence.
(c)	every person who aids another person in committing the offence.
(d)	 any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.
(2) 	…	
(3)	… 
(4) 	…	

Issue

9.	The issue for determination by the Court is an appropriate sentence to impose on the prisoner.

Committal Court Disposition

10.	The State relied on documentary evidence which comprised mainly of statements from the witnesses including the victims and the Police Record of Interview dated 26 January 2023. All these documents were contained in the Bulolo District Court Deposition and tendered into evidence by consent:

(a)	The Record of Interview comprised both the original Pidgin and English Version dated 27 January 2023 conducted between the prisoner and the Investigating Officer, Constable Jack Kaman relating to the offence of armed robbery which occurred on 21 March 2022. The corroborating police officer was Constable Kelly Feto. Both officers are attached to the Bulolo Police Station. In that Record of Interview, the prisoner Meckelvin Kanamai admitted to having committed “the offence of armed robbery whilst “armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; and that at, immediately before or immediately after, the time of the robbery, wounds or uses any other personal violence to a person, namely Security Guards of PNG Forest Company…” (Question and Answer 7, 17 to 52 of the Record of Interview).

(b)	The Statements of Chris Kapun dated 22 March 2022 who is the victim in this matter include the statements of Tonai Vianni, dated 23 and 24 March 2022, Peter Gau dated 23 & 24 March 2022, Linge Karam dated 5 April 2022 all are security guards in the employment of the PNGFP company.

(c)	 Also in the depositions were the statements of Senior Constable Jack Kaman dated 13 February 2023 (Investigating Officer) and Constable Kelly Feto (Corroborator) dated 13 February 2023 of Bulolo Police Station. 

(d)	All these statements respectively confirmed the identity of the accused and the circumstances and his demeanour at the time of the commission of the offence including the interrogation and record of interview relating to the laying of the charge against the prisoner.

11.	Upon the reading of the Committal Court dispositions and being satisfied that the evidence contained in the dispositions supported the charge and also having noted the admissions contained in Questions and Answers No. 17, 17 to 52 of the Record of Interview dated 26 January 2023; I accepted the prisoner’s guilty plea. I then entered a conviction against the prisoner on the charge of armed robbery with actual violence under s 386 (1), (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act (Ch No 262).

Antecedent Report

12.	The antecedent report tendered into evidence by the State disclosed that the prisoner is a young adult male. He is unemployed. He did complete Grade 8 at Wau Primary School. The prisoner has no prior convictions and is a first-time offender. 

Allocutus

13.	In administering the allocutus, the prisoner was asked if he had anything to say on the issue of penalty. He replied, yes. He was then given the opportunity to speak. In his statement on penalty, he said that he was sorry for what he did. He said sorry for breaking God’s 10 commandments. Sorry for breaking the Constitution. He also said sorry to the victims for what he did. He says sorry to the Police, CS officers, the court and those who are in Court for what he did.

14.	 In addition, he asked for God’s mercy and the mercy of the Court when determining penalty. He also asked for leniency from the Court and request that he be placed on probation. Furthermore, he said sorry to his family, the community and church leaders of his area. 

Pre-Sentence Report

15.	Because he had asked to be placed on probation, his lawyer, Mr Boku requested that this Court direct the Community Based Corrections (CBC) Office to prepare a Pre-Sentence Report to be complied on the prisoner and have it filed for purposes of assisting this Court determine the issue of penalty. 

16.	This process is a necessary component of the Court process where prisoners have exercised their right to ask the Court to be placed on probation. To facilitate this process, the Probation Officer, (Bulolo) was ordered to prepare and file a Pre-Sentence Report for this purpose. He was directed to have this Report prepared and be filed  23 October by 2023.

17.	The Pre-Sentence Report was received from the CBC Office, Bulolo on 6 November 2023 and is available to the Court. I have perused the Report and the overall assessments contained in the report appears favourable to the prisoner.  It indicated that he lives with his parents and is supported by them both financially and emotionally. He is however unemployed. He completed Grade 8 of high school only but left school because of school fees problems. The prisoner says that he is single. His mother upon being interviewed, says otherwise. However,  I do  note that his mother is very supportive.  She does her best to keep her children out of trouble including the prisoner. 

18.	 The prisoner has admitted that he was wrong and that he asked for leniency and to be placed on probationary orders. 

19.	Whilst the Pre-Sentence Report has recommended supervisory probationary orders on terns, It is apparent that the Pre-Sentence Report does not provide any suggestions as to how the probationary orders if granted were to be implemented.

20.	Aside from the above, there are no community views regarding the rehabilitation and reconciliation back to the community and how the prisoner can adjust back to community life. Given the lack of community views, and the fact that the prisoner appears to hand around with other young people of his age and is bound to be influenced through peer pressure. I give less consideration to the recommendations for supervisory probationary orders on terms.

Mitigating Factors

21.	The mitigating factors in your favour include your early guilty plea, which greatly assisted this Court in arriving at this early outcome. In addition, this Court also noted that you are a first-time offender, your co-operation with the police and explanation as to how you committed the offence in the Record of Interview and the views expressed in the pre-sentence report. 

Aggravating Factors

22.	The aggravating factors against you are, however, is that the sum of money stolen is very substantial, it should be pointed out that this Court does not condone your actions including acts of actual violence on the victim. You robbed the victim of its cash of a sum of K108, 034.67. During the robbery you also applied physical violence on a security guard employed by the PNGFP company cutting him on his thump with a bush knife, immediately and/or during the commission of this robbery. This type of offence is prevalent. 

Application of the law to the facts

23.	The State in this case must prove the following elements of the offence under section 386(1) (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code. These are that:  

(a)	There must be a robbery.
(b)	The robbery must be committed on a thing capable of being stolen.
(c)	At the time of the robbery the accused is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon; or 
(d)	Is in company with one or more other persons.
(e)	At the time of robbery, the person wounds or uses other personal violence.

24.	In your case, because you had pleaded guilty to the charge, the State did not call any oral evidence to corroborate the evidence contained in the various witnesses’ statements but relied on these oral statements which had been tendered into evidence by consent to substantiate the allegations.  This means that all the elements of the offence of armed robbery under s 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code is proven. 

25.	These witnesses’ statements clearly showed that you and your accomplices held up security guards of the PNG Forest Products in front of the Bulolo BSP Bank and you all stole money valued in the sum of K108, 034.67. At the time of stealing you and your accomplices used actual violence on any person in order to obtain the thing stolen. At the time you and your accomplices stole from the security guards of the PNG Forest Products, you and your accomplices, (the robbers) were armed with homemade guns and bush knives and in the act of stealing the money, you and your accomplices  stabbed one of the security guards on the hand using a knife.  The armed robbery occurred between 1.00. and 2.00 p.m. on 21 March 2022. The cash amount of K108, 034.67 was not recovered by police. 

26.	For purposes of this charge, money is capable of being stolen and the commission of this robbery was carried out with the use of homemade guns and knives which are a dangerous and offensive weapon.  In addition, personal violence was used to commit robbery whereby the victims were threatened with homemade guns, knife and the victim, Chris Kapun sustained a cut on his thumb with a knife.  

Submission on Sentence

27.	In submission on sentence, Mr. Boku on your behalf submitted that whilst the you pleaded guilty upon indictment to the charge of one count of armed robbery with actual violence contrary to the Criminal Code Act; for which the maximum penalty prescribed under s 386 (1), (2) (a) & (c) of the Criminal Code Act (Ch No 262) is subject to s 19, life imprisonment. Mr Boku reiterated that the imposition of the maximum penalty should be reserved for the worst of category offence under consideration: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653. Further and in addition, the Courts have unfettered sentencing discretion and are not necessarily bound by the Supreme tariffs when considering sentence: Thress Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC1017; and where in plea cases, “... the offender must be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt and if there are contentious facts in which there is no agreement, the Court should act on the version of the facts which, within the bounds of possibility, is most favourable to the accused: Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890. Mr Boku further submitted that since the prisoner had pleaded guilty early, the prisoner has gained considerable benefit by his early plea by saving the Court’s time and expenses in running a trial of the matter: The State v Nelson [2005] N2844 to support his submission on leniency. Other cases which were relied upon in his submission on a partly suspended sentence as in the case of The State v Potena Enai (CR No. 1222 of 2019, Unreported judgment, 13 February 2022), an armed robbery case, where a sentence of  12 months was imposed on the  prisoner, six months of which is suspended and the balance of the six months to  serve in custody at CIS, Buimo. 

28.	. In reply, Ms Joseph for the State submitted that this is a case where the prisoner robbed the victim, PNG Forest Products, a company, of her cash in the sum of K108, 034.67. At the time of stealing you and your accomplices used actual violence on any person in order to obtain the thing stolen. At the time you and your accomplices stole from the security guards of the PNG Forest Products, you and your accomplices, (the robbers) were armed with homemade guns and bush knives and in the act of stealing the money, you and your accomplices stabbed one of the security guards on the hand using a knife.  The armed robbery occurred between 1.00. and 2.00 p.m. on 21 March 2022. The cash amount of K108, 034.67 was not recovered by police. 

29.	Ms Joseph submitted that you; at, immediately and during the commission of the offence, used force or used a lethal weapon, namely a bush knife to apply personal violence by cutting one, Chris Kapun on his thumb.  Ms Joseph further submitted that to date, no attempts have been made to reconcile or to pay compensation to the victims. In addition, your statement on allocutus did not disclose that there were any genuine attempt or efforts made to do so.

30.	With regard to sentence, Ms Joseph submitted that this Court has wide discretion under s 19 of the Criminal Code to impose an appropriate penalty. Overall, Ms Joseph submitted that the Court exercise discretion to impose a custodial sentence. 

31.	Furthermore, the maximum penalty prescribed for an offence is reserved for the worst form or category or offending for that particular offence as stated in the case of Ure Hane v the State [1984] PNGLR 105. In addition, in Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38, the Supreme Court held that the principle in determining sentence, is that each and every case should be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Furthermore, this court was referred to several comparable case authorities by both counsels on their address on sentence which were very useful in my deliberations.  

Sentencing guidelines

32.	The case of Gimble v The State [1988] PNGLR 271 sets out the category of robbery and the term of sentence imposed which are useful guides in sentencing. These are:

(i)	Category 1 – Robbery of a house 			7 years
(ii)	Category 2 - Robbery of a bank				5 years
(iii)	Category 3 - Robbery of a store and vehicle		5 years
(iv)	Category 4 - Robbery of a person on a street		3 years

33.	In The State v Liliura [2014] N5785, the sentencing guidelines set out in Gimble v The State (supra) which the Court viewed as outdated, increased the sentencing guidelines. These are set out below:

(i)	Category 1 – Robbery of a house 			10 years
(ii)	Category 2 - Robbery of a bank				9 years
(iii)	Category 3 - Robbery of a store and vehicle		8 years
(iv)	Category 4 - Robbery of a person on a street		8 years

Starting point of sentence

34.	Mr. Boku submitted that this Court should follow the guidelines set out in Gimble v The State (supra) and he proposed that a starting point of sentence of 3 years be imposed. However, he conceded that there is an increase in the sentencing trends for armed robbery, he submitted that a proper starting point of sentence be of 6 years imprisonment less the period of time that the prisoner has been held in custody. The balance of the term of sentence, however, be suspended in whole and the prisoner be discharged to the rising of the Court. 

35.	Ms Joseph for the State submitted that the starting point of sentence should be 10 years imprisonment. There is a strong need for both personal and general deterrence. The offence of armed robbery is being committed almost every single day, not only in Bulolo but also everywhere in our country. People are constantly living in fear of their lives as well as the fear of loss and damages to their properties. Business houses and small stores are vulnerable at the hands of the likes of the prisoner, who preyed upon their businesses and even use threat and actual violence to steal from them. 

Comparable cases

Both counsels referred this Court to a number of comparable cases as a guide to assist determine sentence which I am grateful for the assistance provided, a few of which I have out set below:

A number of cases were cited by Mr. Boku, however, I have only listed a few noting that the facts of the case do differ to the matter currently before the Court. I have listed a number of as a guide in my deliberations on sentence. These are listed as:
State v Liliura [2014] N5785	The prisoner pleaded guilty to unlawful detention of a bank manager and her family and committing armed robbery of a bank.	Sentence to 15 years	
The State v Aaron Lahu (2005) N2798	Guilty plea – Hoskins Mart store – large gang – gun and bush knives – offender got involved by accident – had minimal involvement.	3 years	
The State v Justin Komboli (2005) N2891	Trial conducted and sentence passed in absence of offender, who had escaped from custody – trade store robbery, Kavui, near Hoskins – armed with beer bottles, sticks and stones – store goods stolen – sole offender.	4 years	
The State v Francis Vau Kamo (2006) N2991	Trial – robbery of bank cash shipment, Hoskins Airport – young offender – in company with three others – firearms – K380,000.00 stolen.	13 years	
The State v Alphonse Polpolio and Jeffery Baru (2006) N4514	Guilty pleas – two store robberies, Kandrian – in company with one other person K2,807.00 stolen in first robbery – K21,530.00 stolen in second robbery.	5 years;
9 years	

36.	For comparable cases, Ms Joseph referred to the following cases to support her submission on sentence:  

Name of Case	Particulars	Sentence imposed	
Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271	Appellant and a group of men robbed a club in Kimbe. The offenders were armed with guns and a knife. Shots fired and manager knocked unconscious. Liquor stolen, valued at K1,135.00	Sentence of 9 years imposed by trial judge. On appeal sentence reduced to 7 years	
Anis v The State [2000] SC642	Appellants held up a coffee mills employee armed with homemade guns and axes. One employee was kicked and told to hand over money quickly. The amount of money stolen was K20,234.00. All offenders (young), some relatively juveniles	Sentence of 10 years imposed; on appeal, sentence reduced to 7 years and 6 years each for his 2 accomplices.	
State v Allan Huaiyo [2023] CR NO. 1482 of 2023: Lae, Manuhu J (unreported judgment.	Same set of facts as this present case. The prisoner, Meckelvin Kanamai is the co-accused amongst others

Guilty plea- mitigating and aggravating factors considered including sentence trend and the need to impose a deterrent sentence because of the prevalence of the offence.	Sentence of 10 years. Less pre-sentence period in custody.
Balance of sentence to be served in custody.

No suspension.	

Determination of sentencing criteria

37.	It is settled law in this jurisdiction that the maximum penalty for an offence should ordinarily be reserved for the very worst types of cases and thus the question then arises as to whether this present case is such a case and made references to the following cases: SCR No. 1 of 1984; Re Maximum Penalty [1984] PNGLR 418, Avia Aihi v the State [1982] PNGLR 92 and Ure Hane v the State [1984] PNGLR 105. This Court is minded determining the facts and circumstances of each case on its own set of facts and circumstances in order to determine an appropriate penalty: Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38. For this case, the prisoner was involved in the planning and commission of the offence. The robbery was pre-planned and consciously carried out by the offender and other persons who are still at large.  The money stolen was not recovered by police.
38.	Further, the sentencing guidelines established in Gimble v the State (supra) has been reviewed and it has increased: The State v Liliura (supra). The sentencing guideline has increased from 3 years to 8 years. The sentencing trends however have varied considerably as can be seen by various pronouncements by the Courts and highlighted in the comparable cases set out in this ruling. There is an increase in the range of sentence terms imposed by the Courts due to the prevalence of such offences. 
39.	In The Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564, the Supreme Court introduced the following starting point:

(1)	robbery of a house – ten years.
(2)	robbery of a bank – nine years.
(3)	robbery of a store, hotel, club, vehicle on the road etc – eight years.
(4)	robbery of a person on the street – six years.

40.	There has since been an increase in the sentencing tariffs. Hence, the sentencing guidelines in Don Hale (supra) if adopted and applied to your case attracts a penalty of 6 years imprisonment. The State in their submission, submits that adherence to these tariffs will not adequately reflect the prevalence of this offence and has asked this Court to consider other case authorities which have dealt with similar offending and make a finding accordingly. Ms Joseph submitted that a custodial sentence of 10 years is appropriate penalty to be imposed on you. 

41.	The exercise of discretion to suspend the minimum sentence is provided for under s 19 (1) (d) of the Code  (State v Waim [1998] PNGLR 360 at 363 per Injia J (as he was then)  is also available to the Court and must be based on some proper basis: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412, for instance, a first time young offenders; 18 years or below; Gimble v The State  [1988-89] PNGLR 271  at 275; and is of good character and good family background; State v Frank Kagai  [1987] PNGLR 320 and State v Justin Nyama [1991]  PNGLR  at 127 or on medical grounds;  Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew  [1986] PNGLR 91. 

42.	Whilst I have taken into account all that the prisoner has said in his allocutus and have considered the address by his counsel on mitigation. I am also required to weigh the consequences of sending offenders to prison for “non-violent crimes” and those which have been categorised as “violent crimes”: Doreen Liprin v. The State [2001] PGSC 11; SC673 (9 November 2001) and off course, the established principle of law which states that the maximum penalty should be reserved for the worst type cases: Goli Golu v The State (supra). 

43.	This present case may not be the worst type of offence of robbery. however, the accused committed the offence in aggravating circumstances. It is very serious crime and is prevalent. It appears that the sentences imposed by the Courts are not having an effect. Hence, the Courts must play its part in ensuring that the principles of sentencing of deterrence, separation, rehabilitation and retribution still remain the same: see The Acting Public Prosecutor v Uname Aumane & Ors [1980] PNGLR 510 at [537-538] per Kapi J.  Of the four (4) principles of sentencing, I note that deterrence is used more frequently because the concept of deterrence is to discourage the prisoner from repeating the same offence and to also serve as a promotion of peace, good order, and safety with the community. The other desired effect of deterrence is that it is seen as a warning to other likeminded offenders to cause them not to engage in such criminal activity because if they do than they will be dealt with by the law and punished accordingly: The Acting Public Prosecutor v Uname Aumane & Ors (supra); see also State v Moewe [2024] PGNC 135; N10801 (5 April 2024).

44.	By reasons of the foregoing, I have arrived at a conclusion that the circumstances of the case do not warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed under s 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c ) of the Criminal Code. I consider that a lesser sentence be imposed based on the sentencing guidelines in The State v Liliura (supra) with a starting point of sentence of 10 years as submitted by the State, with movements up and down based on the factual circumstances of the case. In this case, the prisoner and his accomplices did use force or used other forms of weapons to threaten and cut a security officer on the thumb during the commission of the offence. 

45.	On the other hand, I also accept submission from the State that sentences imposed for armed robbery cases are not having any effect on offenders who commit the crime of robbery. What is clear is that now a days, the offence of armed robbery is freely and frequently committed invariably by young people such as your case. I also note that the aggravating factors against you far outweighs the mitigating factor. Whilst I do note that you have expressed remorse for what you have done, I refer to and reiterate the statement made by his Honour Lenalia J in the case of The State v Richard Saku (No.3) (2006) N3284 where he referred to the comments made by the Court the case of Gimble v The State (supra) in which the Court stated: “that where an offence of armed robbery is committed with features of aggravations such as actual violence or where a robbery involves a large amount of money may justify a higher sentence. A plea of guilty should justify a lower sentence.” I adopt that proposition and agree that since you have pleaded guilty, consideration be given to a lower sentence.

46.	In Phillip Kasman v The State (2004) SC759, the appellant was a member of a gang which robbed the staff at the doorstep into the ANZ Bank in Waigani where they stole an unspecified sum of money. The trial judge imposed a sentence of ten (10) years. He appealed but the Supreme Court did not want to disturb the sentence as it was a public place, and more injuries could have been caused if the plan went wrong. In this present case, the robbery took place in front of the BSP Bank at Bulolo (similar to the above case).  Here, I note that you and your accomplices exhibited some bold approach to committing this serious crime without any fear for the law and respect for the business community, might I say even ordinary people cannot be treated in the way you and your accomplices had treated the PNGFP company employee in that relevant period. I also find that you did not display any respect for businesses or people who have worked hard and earned their living lawfully. The business community should not suffer, nor can ordinary citizens suffer from the hands of cruel minority such as you who have no respect for the law. 

47.	In determining an appropriate sentence, the Court noted that the sentences that have been imposed for the offence of armed robbery has not served its purpose in deterring likeminded offenders: The State v Alus Tamagi and Paija Teke (supra).  Armed robbery is on the increase therefore, something needs to be done to address such a hike in this type of offence. It justifies an increase in sentence as a deterrence to the offenders and other likeminded offenders. The offence of armed robbery was serious as it involved the use of dangerous weapons namely homemade guns and knives. The offenders had stolen a substantial amount of money stolen.  

48.	I have taken into account the mitigating factors submitted in your favour .  However, I am of the view that the aggravating factors outweighed the factors in favour of the prisoner. Consequently, I am of the view that a starting point of 10 years sentence be imposed with movements up and down the scale of the maximum penalty imposed under the provisions of s 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c ) of the Criminal Code as submitted by the State.   I find that a custodial term sentence is warranted and thus am inclined to accept the submission of the State that a head sentence of 10 years be imposed on you, Meckelvin Kanamai.

49.	At the same time, I also do take into account the fact that you have pleaded guilty saving Court’s time and expense in running a full trial which necessitate some leniency in terms of sentence.

50.	 I note that you been in custody since 31 January 2023 and have been in custody at Buimo CIS for a period of 1 year 3 months 24 days.  

51.	In conclusion, I hereby sentence, you, the prisoner, Meckelvin Kanamai to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour less the period of 1 year 4 months 24 days that you have been held in custody pursuant to s 3 (2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986. 

52.	In the exercise of discretion under s 19 of the Criminal Code, 2 years of the sentence is suspended.
 
53.	You (Meckelvin Kanamai), the prisoner will now serve the balance of the term of sentence of  6 years 7 months 6 days imprisonment at CIS, Buimo

Orders

54.	Having convicted you, Meckelvin Kanamai on one count of robbery with actual violence contrary to Section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code, you are now sentenced as follows:

Length of sentence imposed: 	10 years. 	
Pre-sentence period deducted:	1 year 4 months  24 days. 	
Balance of term of sentence to be served:	8 years 7 months 6 days	
Amount of sentence suspended:	2 years.	
Time to be served in custody:	6 years 7 months 6 days.	

55.	 The balance of the prison term of 6 years 7 months 6 days imprisonment is to be served at CIS, Buimo. 
Sentenced accordingly.

________________________________________________________________
The Public Prosecutor:	Lawyer for State
The Public Solicitor:	Lawyer for Prisoner