N11407

   PAPUA NEW GUINEA 
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (JJ) 57 &58 OF 2024
CR (JJ) 59 & 60 OF 2024

BETWEEN
THE STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

AND
DT & AH
Juveniles

TARI:  KOSTOPOULOS J
17, 18, 21, 25 JULY 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - Plea of guilty to armed robbery – Section 386(1)&(2)(a) & (2)(c) of the Criminal Code Act – robbed the victim of K206 of her  personal property – offensive weapon used, a bush knife – Admissibility of depositions on sentencing – offence not worst case - Application of Goli Golu –v- the State, Avia Aihi –v- The State, and Lawrence Simbe –v- The State considered – sentencing is considered based on its own facts and circumstances. 

SENTENCING – Offender DT sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, sentence suspended from the date of sentencing on 25 July 2025 when both offenders released from Hawa Prison on remand since committal on 14 August 2024 - Offender AH sentenced to juvenile detention for 3 years, sentence suspended from the date of sentencing on 25 July 2025 when both offenders released from Hawa Prison on remand since the committal on 14 August 2024 -  conditions of suspended sentence and release to be of good behavior bond, release to parental supervision and to abide by further conditions pursuant to Juvenile Justice Act – review by National Court of progress of both offenders on anniversary of sentence  – both offenders expressed genuine rumors to court and to the victim – parents to repay K206 to victim on behalf of offenders– Objective seriousness – Juvenile Offenders 13 and 17 years old at time of offence – General deterrence.

Cases cited
Acting Public Prosecutor v Aumane & Ors [1980] PNGLR 510
Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92
Dambui v The State [2003] SC724
Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2003] SC730
Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294
Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412
State v Benedict [2014] PGNC 106
State v FSD [2011] PGNC 164
State v FT (A Juvenile) [2016] N6435
State v IW (A Juvenile) [2021] N9118
State v JH (A Juvenile) [2025] N11173
State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39
State v Malko [2018] PGNC 486
State v Manu Tuangi CR No 726 of 2011
State v SE (A Juvenile) [2019] N7971
State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329
State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5
The Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564
The State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320
The State v. Aruve Waiba [1994] CR1/94 (Unnumbered and Unreported)

Counsel
Mr. P. Tengdui, for the State 
Ms. C. Koek, for the offenders  

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1.	KOSTOPOULOS J:  On 21 July 2025, the offenders, DT and AH who are now 18 years and 14 years of age, respectively, pleaded guilty to the charge of Armed Robbery contravening Section 386 (1) &(2)(a) &(2)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 Chapter 262 (CCA) as a joint enterprise or in aiding and abetting to commit the offence. 

2.	The court accepts their respective pleas of guilty.

3.	The offence is a serious offence that carries with it the penalty of imprisonment for life subject to section 19 where the CCA permits a Court to sentence the offender to imprisonment for any shorter period as the facts and circumstances permit in the discretion of the sentencing judge.

4.	The offence committed consists of a single act committed by the offenders on the 5th of March 2024, between 7am and 8am, the accused DT and AH were at the portion of the spline road between HQ3, carwash and oil Pad B at Hides 4 in Komo/Hulia District of the Hela Province in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea.

5.	Admitted into evidence are the brief facts that the offenders, by agreement between counsel for the offenders, Ms Koek, counsel from the Office of Public Solicitor and counsel for the State, Mr Tengdui, counsel from the Office of the Public Prosector, constituted the violation of section 386 (1) &(2)(a) &(2)(c) of the CCA beyond reasonable doubt.

6.	The Court then read the brief facts to the offenders to which they both agreed.

Brief Facts

“The state alleged that on Monday the 5th of March 2024, between 7am and 8am, the accused DT and AH were at the portion of the spline road between HQ3, Carwash and Oil Pad B at Hides 4 in Komo. 

The victim, EU was also there, and she was walking alone the spline road. As she passed the accused (plural), they followed her and along the way stopped her. The accused AH pointed a bush knife at her and when she tried to brush off the knife, it cut her fingers. They then took the victims string bag in which she had K206.00 cash and other personal properties and escape with it. 

The victim reported the robbery to her brother-in-law who alerted the police and the offenders were arrested and charged.

The State has now presented an indictment against them, charging them with Aggravated Robbery pursuant to section 386(1) &(2)a(2)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1974. State also involves section 7&8 of the Criminal Code Act, alleging they each aided and abetted the other in the prosecution of a common purpose. 

These are the facts.”

7.	The court also confirmed in the brief facts by agreement of both counsel that the 13-year-old offender, AH, used the bush knife during the commission of the offence and cut the finger of the victim.

8.	The court relies upon the agreed facts admitted by the offenders that the following evidence I find is proven by the necessary standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt:

i.	On the morning of 5th of March 2024, between 7am and 8.am, the offenders DT and AH were at the portion of the spline road between HQ3, Carwash and Oil Pad B at Hides 4 in Komo. 

ii.	The victim, EU was 8 months pregnant at the time of the offence. EU was there walking along the spline road.

iii.	As she passed the offenders, they followed her and along the way they stopped her.

iv.	The offender AH pointed a bush knife at her and when she tried to brush off the knife, it cut her fingers.

v.	They then took the victim’s string bag in which she had K206.00 cash and other personal properties and escaped with it. 

vi.	The victim reported the robbery to her brother-in-law who alerted the police.

vii.	The offenders were then arrested and charged with the present offence.

9.	The State tendered into evidence the totality of the depositions representing the evidence leading to the conviction of the offenders, without objection or qualification by counsel for the offenders for the court to consider in sentencing the offenders. 

10.	The purpose of the depositions being tendered represents evidence to support the prosecution of the offences and to satisfy the court that the evidence supports the agreed facts beyond reasonable doubt.

11.	The court is satisfied that the evidence in the depositions establishes the offence committed by the offenders beyond reasonable doubt.

12.	The documents in evidence consist of the conventional categories of documents in criminal matters, namely:

i.	The committal proceedings in the District Court at Tari.

ii.	The police court file, police brief, proof of service, information, summary of facts and police statement.

iii.	Witness statements which include statements from the victim, the police investigator, corroborator and translator.

iv.	The record of interview between Police, Senior Constable Kutchy Gand and the offenders conducted in the Pidgin language then translated into the English language are both dated 18 March 2024 (both unsigned).

v.	The antecedent report of the offender DT was marked as a separate exhibit on sentencing. There is no antecedent report for juvenile AH but I accept that he has no previous convictions. 

vi.	The pre-sentence report for both juvenile DT and AH.

13.	I will deal separately with the issue of the evidence referred to above further in the judgment relevant to the appropriate sentence.

14.	There are also facts leading to the offence committed by the offenders on 5th March 2024 in the witness statements contained in the depositions that I have read.

15.	The obvious victim to the offence is EU aged 24 who was 8 months pregnant at the time of the offence and who suffered an injury (cut) to her hand and her string bag stolen from her by the offenders with K206 cash and other personal items in the bag. 

The Committal proceedings in the court below – the original charges and what the juveniles ultimately pleaded guilty to in the National Court

16.	On 14 August 2024 both juveniles faced the District Court at Tari and were both committed by Magistrate Edward Kupo for the following offences and placed on remand at Hawa Prison:-

i.	“On 14 August 2024 DT and AH were committed for trial to the National Court on a charge of did forcefully and unlawfully commit rape upon the victim, a national female being without here consent thereby contravening section 347 of the Criminal Code Act”

ii.	“On 14 August 2024 DT and AH were committed for trial to the National Court on a charge of being armed with dangerous weapons namely bush knives and used actual violence, herein by marking the bush knives sharp blades at the victim, a national female and stole her cash money of K3,380.00, 4 cigarette packets valued at K122.00, 20 rolls flex cards valued at K400, and 2 Kina Bank cards the property of the victim thereby contravening section 386 (1)(2)(a)(c) of the Criminal Code Act.” 

17.	The above charges were in the category of most serious crimes alleged to have been committed by the offenders against the victim at the committal which were alleged during the criminal sittings of this court on 2 June 2025.

18.	It is suffice to say the agreed facts ultimately presented to this court on the pleas bare no resemblance to the matters alleged at committal and for which the juveniles were arrested and placed in police custody from 7 March 2024.

19.	On 17 July 2025, the State tendered a declaration pursuant to section 525 (1)(b) of the CCA that the State hereby declines to lay charges against AH and DT in the matter involving alleged rape of the victim pursuant to section 347 of the CCA.

The Submissions of Counsel for the Prosecution and the Offender    

20.	The court must now consider both the written submission and the submission that supplement the written submissions in arguendo before the court heard on 24 July 2025 before proceeding to reasons for sentence. 

The State – Counsel for the Prosecution – Mr. Tengdui 

21.	The submissions of the State are set out in written form filed in court on 21 July 2025. 

22.	The key submissions of the State are set out in condensed form below: 

The offenders pleaded guilty to one (1) count each of aggravated robbery pursuant to section 386(1) & (2)(a) & (2)(c) of the Criminal Code Act. State also invokes sections 7 & 8 of the Criminal Code Act, alleging they each aided and abetted the other in the prosecution of a common purpose.

The maximum penalty for the crime of aggravated robbery under section 386(1) & (2) of the Criminal Code Act is life imprisonment, or a lesser sentence subject of course to section 19 of the Criminal Code Act.

The agreed facts before the court and then set out verbatim.
 
To state the obvious, sentencing is not a mathematical or algebraic formula, and each case should be determined on its own peculiar facts and circumstances, being the factors in aggravation, and mitigation, the extenuating circumstances and the gravity of the offence itself.

It is a cardinal principle of sentencing that the maximum penalty should be reserved for the most serious or worst type of any offence.  The basic principle to be observed is that the punishment to be awarded should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. (Goli Golu –v- the State [1979] PNGLR 653, Avia Aihi –v- The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92.)

In the exercise of that judicial discretion to determine the appropriate penalty, each case must be decided on its own facts having regard to the seriousness of the crime, the gravity or otherwise of the circumstances of the crime and the personal circumstances of the prisoner which aggravate or mitigate the punishment and the interests of society.  (Lawrence Simbe –v- The State [1994] PNGLR 38).

These will depend, to a larger extent, on the factors that aggravate the commission of the offense or mitigate it as the case maybe. To that end, the Supreme Court in Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271 (27 July 1989), proposed the following sentence guidelines in robbery cases: on a plea of not guilty, young first offenders carrying weapons and threatening violence:

•	House – 7 years.
•	Bank – 6 years.
•	Store, hotel, club, vehicle – 5 years.
•	Person on street – 3 years.
 
Features of aggravation such as actual violence, the amount stolen, robber in position of trust towards the victim, may justify a higher sentence: a plea of guilty a lower sentence.

The state submits that this case is not the worst case to attract the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The State submits the following factors that aggravate the offending:   

i)	The offense was committed whilst being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a bush knife. 
ii)	The victim was injured during the robbery.
iii)	A sum of K206 was stolen during the robbery.
iv)	The offense is prevalent. 

The mitigating factors are:

i)	The offenders have pleaded guilty.
ii)	They are first offenders.
iii)	They have expressed some remorse.
iv)	They made early admissions.
v)	They cooperated with police in that they admitted to committing the offense.

At the time of offending, 5th March 2024 the prisoners were juveniles. The prisoner DT was seventeen (17) years old while AH was thirteen (13) years old. 

The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2014 therefore apply to them. Under Part VII of this Act, once a juvenile is convicted of a crime, s. 75(1) of the Act provides that the “court shall impose sentence on the juvenile in accordance with this Part.”  

Now considering the factors to be taken into account in sentencing, the offence of aggravated robbery is a very serious crime, and it carries life imprisonment as the maximum penalty. 

At the time of the offending, AH was quite young at thirteen (13) years old while DT was seventeen (17) years. DT was the older of them. 

From the brief facts, it is apparent that the offending was more opportunistic rather than a planned robbery indicative of gang holdups of houses and stores. They are first offenders, and they have spent over a year in pre-trial custody.

In the circumstances of the case as they find themselves, what would be an appropriate sentence?   

Armed robbery or aggravated robbery is a very serious crime indeed. For that alone, the prisoners’ options under the Juvenile Justice Act 2014 such as diversion are not available to them. 

They held up a pregnant woman on a public road and robbed her of her money and personal items. She was injured in the process. A custodial sentence is appropriate.

In Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271 (27 July 1989) the Supreme Court there set sentencing guidelines to be followed in robbery cases. According to those guidelines, robbery of a person on the street attracts three (3) years imprisonment. 

In other cases, following Gimble, in Public Prosecutor v Don Hale [1998] SC564, the court there increased each of the tariffs set in Gimble by three (3) years. The principles of leniency and suspension of sentence because of young age were discussed with the view that such leniency must be supported by a pre-sentence report or juvenile justice officer’s report or some community-based report which is favorable to the prisoner for a lesser or suspended sentence. 

In the present case, the juveniles have been remanded over a year after committal awaiting their trial. They are convicted upon their plea of guilty for a very serious offense. 

Whether the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2014 had been administered upon their arrest and committal cannot be ascertained. 

But their offending was more opportunistic than planned as the latter would increase their criminal culpability and warrant a stiffer penalty. 

They are first offenders and one of the prisoners is thirteen (13) years old which would call for a sentence in the nature of an order for good behavior bond under s80(1)(c) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2014. 

They each have, however, served time in remand while awaiting their trial to be called. 

In these circumstances, it is our (State’s) submission that a sentence equivalent to the time spent in pre-trial custody is appropriate. 

It is so in light of the fact that despite the obvious ages of the prisoners, at least one of them, the protections offered by the Juvenile Justice Act 2014 were not accorded to them upon initial arrest by the police and as well through the committal process. 

The Public Solicitor – Counsel for the Offenders – Ms Koek  

23.	The court now must consider submissions made by the offenders’ counsel which are set out in written form filed in Court on 21st July 2025. 

24.	The relevant authorities referred to by the State are also relied upon by counsel for the offenders as common grounds relevant to sentencing principles. 

This Court has wider discretions to impose a sentence that is less than the maximum prescribed penalty: s.19 of the Criminal Code. The maximum should only be reserved for cases which are considered very serious. (Goli Golu -v- The State [1979] PNGLR 653).

This case is not a worse case of Armed Robbery Cases.

In order to consider sentence appropriate to this case the court should consider the mitigating factors, the aggravating factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to the commission of this offence. 

We also submit to the court to consider the relevant comparable cases, to assist in reaching an appropriate sentence for the prisoner.

Personal Particulars of the Prisoner Juvenile DT
i.	The prisoner’s name is DT.
ii.	He is seventeen (17) years old and is a juvenile.
iii.	He comes from Korotangi village.
iv.	He is the last born out of six children.
v.	He is not formally educated; he left school at grade three (3) level.
vi.	He is a member of the Evangelical Brotherhood church.

Personal Particulars of the Prisoner Juvenile AH
i.	The prisoner’s name is AH
ii.	He is thirteen (13) years old and is a juvenile.
iii.	He comes from Korotangi village
iv.	He is the last born out of five (5) children
v.	He is not formally educated; he left school at grade one level
vi.	He is a member of the Evangelical Brotherhood church
Mitigating Factors for Juvenile DT
i.	the prisoner in his allocutus apologized to the court for the time and effort to hear.
ii.	his case for the offence he committed. This was genuine remorse.
iii.	He is a juvenile, seventeen (17) years and had been educated to grade three level.
iv.	He has been in custody for a year and four months since his arrest. 
v.	He admitted before this court which saves time and resources. He also admitted at the first instant during the record of interview. (Answer to question 25)
vi.	He is a first-time offender, with no prior conviction or criminal records.
vii.	He was educated to grade three (3) level but wishes to continue his education if given the chance.
viii.	He is the 6th born out of six children. Both his parents are alive but are old age. The mother is worried about her son and had been faithfully coming to court when requested by the prisoner’s lawyer.

Mitigating Factors for Juvenile AH
i.	The prisoner in his allocutus apologized to the court for the time and effort to hear his case for the offence he committed. This was genuine remorse.
ii.	He is a juvenile, thirteen (13) years and had been educated to grade one level.
iii.	He has been in custody for a year and four months since his arrest.
iv.	He admitted before this court which saves time and resources. He also admitted at the first instant (sic) during the record of interview. (Answer to question 25).
v.	He is a first-time offender, with no prior conviction or criminal records.
vi.	He was educated to grade one level but wishes to continue his education if given the change (sic).
vii.	He is the 5th born out of five children. Both his parents are alive but are of old age.

Aggravating Factors
i.	The offence is prevalent in this country.
ii.	One of the prisoners used an offensive weapon to commit the offence.
iii.	They were in the company of more than one person.
Comparable Case
In submission we rely on the case of the State -v- Manu Tuangi CR No 726 of 2011: - 
In that case the offender joined with two others and held up a man with at knife point in the Botanical Gardens Madang. The victim was stabbed and received superficial injuries and the offender had stolen from him a bilum containing K50.00 cash and two cell batteries. The offender made full admissions to the police and made an early guilty plea, and the stolen property was return back to the victim. The sentence was five years none of it was suspended.

Also, in the case of the State -v- Benedict (2014) PGNC106: - Having been convicted of one count of Robbery contrary to section 386(1)of the Criminal Code Act in circumstances of aggravation under section 386(2)(a) and (b) that it was an armed robbery and he was in company with other persons and they robbed a company employee next to the bank. The company employee was carrying a money bag to the bank. Cash and cheques total value of K35,436.16 were stolen and time in custody awaiting court deducted and was ordered to serve 3 years 7 months. 

The Supreme Court has given sentencing guidelines in a number of leading cases Gimble v The State (1988-1989) and Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998). Especially robbery of a person on a street was three (3) years but has now increased to six (6) years. 

Features such as actual violence, the large amount stolen or where the robber is in a position of trust towards the victim may justify a higher sentence in a plea of guilt which may justify a lower sentence. 

In this case we submit that the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. 

They are juvenile offenders and are first-time offenders. 

They have admission in their record of interview. 

Their custodial sentences must be wholly suspended from the date of sentencing in the circumstances commencing with the guideline sentencing of six (6) years by the superior courts referred to above.

25.	I am persuaded by the State’s submissions on sentence and the facts and reason applying the comparable cases in the range of 3-6 years as a full-time custodial sentence for the offenders to support the court’s views and taking into account section 19(f) of the CCA that a fulltime custodial sentence should be imposed as a general deterrence. 

26.	I apply the provisions of section 75 of the Juvenile Justices Act as the principles and purpose of the Act in sentencing the juveniles as applied in State v FT (A Juvenile) [2016] N6435; State v SE (A Juvenile) [2019] N7971; State v IW (A Juvenile) [2021] N9118 and State v JH (A Juvenile) [2025] N11173. 

The Conduct of the Offender on the Agreed Facts 

27.	The court considers the evidence on sentence and makes the following findings beyond reasonable doubt. 

28.	The conduct of the offenders represents delinquency and abhorrence against the innocent and vulnerable victim who was in fact heavily pregnant at 8 months at that time and was using the public roadway conducting her daily business.  

29.	The conduct of the offenders was deliberate and unprovoked, even though it was opportunistic and unplanned.  

30.	This can only reflect the consequence of their wanton behaviour against expected social norms towards fellow members of the community, especially juvenile DT as the eldest who led the minor AH or incited and fomented him into committing the offence and rob the vulnerable victim at knife point causing her actual harm.   

31.	The offence must be taken as being objectively serious especially with the use of an offensive weapon on a pregnant woman (victim) who is a vulnerable member of the community. 

32.	The holding of a bush knife and threatening the pregnant woman (victim) whilst she tries to defend herself by brushing off the bush knife and had her fingers cut and her string bag forcibly removed from her with other personal items demonstrate dreadful conduct by the offenders towards vulnerable members of the community, as set out in the agreed facts is objectively unspeakable. 

33.	The conduct has had profoundly detrimental consequences both physically and psychologically to the victim resulting from the trauma of having a bush knife used to threaten her and her string bag and personal properties removed from her under forced and threatening circumstances.

34.	The conduct also displays objectional conduct by the offenders to the social fabric and community of Hides 4 area of Hela Province concerning village life, community safety and respect towards others. 

35.	Both counsels agree, and the court accepts and finds beyond reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the offenders was opportunistic in the circumstances.

The Offenders   

36.	The offenders have no prior record of criminal convictions which I will take into account in my reasons for sentencing. 

37.	The offenders were thirteen (13) years and seventeen (17) years of age respectively, at the time of commission of the offence and as time has passed since their arrest, they are now fourteen (14) years and eighteen (18) years of age at the time the proceedings are heard. 

38.	The court must consider the opportunity for rehabilitation to take place and weigh rehabilitation separately to the likelihood that the offenders will re-offend in accordance with the paramount guarantees under the necessary provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. 

39.	The offenders have been in custody since the arrest of AH on 6 March 2024 and DT on 7 March 2024 and on remand at Hawa Correctional Institution (Hawa Prison in Tari) since 14th August 2024 representing a total of 1 year and 141 days or a little over 20 weeks which I round off for the purposes of sentencing to one (1) year and five (5) months that requires to be taken into account in sentencing by the court. I do so in sentencing both offenders. 

40.	The offenders have remained in police custody or remand to date for more than one (1) year and five (5) months they have already served as a consequence of their arrest, charged for the offences and placed on remand and Hawa prison leading to their subsequent admission of guilt.  

41.	I will take into account that they have continued to have a difficult time in custody, particularly AH, who was placed into custody at the very tender age of 13 years.

42.	I am prepared to accept that fact as it was significantly more onerous than it would have been if the facilities at Hawa Prison were not overcrowded, poorly funded by the State and the provincial administration, and not commissioned nor upgraded to acceptable prison standards presently necessary and obvious in 2025. 

43.	They are entitled to a 10% discount for the utilitarian value of their plea of guilty. 

44.	I find that both juveniles are also entitled to some small level of extra leniency because of the objective fact that they spared the victim from what would have been a harrowing and traumatic experience in giving evidence before the court. 

45.	I find that the offenders now have insight as to why they offended and the horrific consequences of being in prison with hardened criminals being held in Hawa prison serving fulltime custodial sentences for serious criminal crimes committed.  

46.	The allocutus is clear in its intent and showed genuine remorse and acceptable true contrition in my findings. 

47.	The parties agreed that the allocutus transcript was heard by Ms Minnie Tamarua, personal secretary to Justice Kostopoulos of the National Court in Tari in relation to the offenders allocutus statements made by the offenders in court during the proceedings and interpreted by the resident court interpreter by agreement of the parties to assist the court in sentencing.

Allocutus Administered – Juvenile DT

His Honor:	Now, I will deal with each Juvenile at a time if that’s alright with you Ms. Koek.	
Ms. Koek:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Now I’ll start with DT, if I could. 
DT, please stand up.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
His Honor:	Now, Mr. Interpreter, I want you to carefully interpret this.
Now, you’ve pleaded guilty to the offence.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
His Honor:	He’ll have to say yes. No nodding, please. 	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Thank you.
Now I’m going to administer what is called the Allocutus and that’s a Latin term, so I’m going to translate it into English which will be translated into the language that you understand. 	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Now, I’m going to remove my wig for the record and make this less formal. 	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT: 	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	So, you feel more comfortable talking to the Court about what I’m going to ask you.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	This is your opportunity to make a statement to the Court to say sorry or apologize for the charges against you to which you have pleaded guilty and to tell the Court why you are sorry.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Okay. What do you say?	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Speaking in language	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Speaking in language	
Interpreter: 	Your Honor in the eyes of the God, I have committed a sin, and I have done wrongly commit this crime.	
His Honor:	Yes.	
DT:	Speaking in language	
Interpreter:	I’ve also am sorry to the Court for what I did. I have done wrongly, broken the law of the country. 	
DT:	Speaking in language	
Interpreter:	I also would like to apologize and sorry to the victim who has been victimized in this time.	
DT:	Speaking in language	
Interpreter:	I’ve been in custody for a long period of time which is one year and six months and would the Court have mercy on me. 	
DT:	Speaking in language	
Interpreter:	When I am discharged from the Court when I am in the community, I will go to school and I will not commit any crimes again.	
DT:	Speaking in language	
Interpreter:	That’s all, your Honor.	
His Honor:	And you know your little brother is with you.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Yes, your Honor.	
Interpreter:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Do you have anything to say about the fact that your little brother is there with you?	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Yes, your Honor.	
Interpreter:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	What do you want to say?	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	
DT:	Speaking in language	
His Honor:	I will tell the same that what I have said about my brother, he’s asking your Honor.	
His Honor:	Alright. Counsel, I think that concludes the allocutus for DT. 	
Ms. Koek:	Yes, your Honor. 	
His Honor: 	Anything else you want to add to that? 
In respect of any other issue?	
Ms. Koek:	No, your Honor. I believe he (DT) covered all areas.	
His Honor:	Yes, I think so. 
Mr. Tengdui?	
Mr. Tengdui:	No.	
His Honor:	Thank you. 
Now, please sit down. 	
Interpreter:	Speaking in language to Juvenile DT	

Allocutus Administered – Juvenile AH

His Honor:	Now, AH, may you please stand up.	
Interpreter: 	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
His Honor:	You know you’ve pleaded guilty to the offence, and I’ve accepted that plea of guilty.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
AH:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Now, you understand that I said previously there’s a Latin word to say sorry, it’s called the Allocutus. This is your chance to give the statement to the Court and to Counsel present, and your parents. Very important.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
His Honor:	And because you are much younger than your brother you are to slowly, carefully, because I’ve provided you this opportunity, this chance, to say sorry or apologize for the charges and now the offence that you have, that’s been made against you and to which you have pleaded guilty to in this matter.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
AH:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Now, can you please tell me what you want to say to the Court?	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
AH:	Speaking in Language	
Interpreter:	Okay in the eyes of the God and also in the eyes of the Court, I do like to feel sorry and confess and ask for the forgiveness of the wrong that I have done. And I also been in custody for quite a long time, which is one year six months, and I have taken my risk in custody. And then as soon as I am out, I will not do any crimes again as I have learned my mistakes while I was in the prison camp, your Honor.	
His Honor:	And what about the victim? What do you say to her? If she was here?	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
AH:	Speaking in Language	
Interpreter:	I will have to also feel sorry to the victim, your Honor. 	
His Honor:	Now when you get a chance, will you pay back the victim? Will you give her the money back?	
Interpreter: 	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
AH:	Speaking in Language
Yes.	
Interpreter:	Your Honor, I will.	
His Honor: 	Anything else you want to say?	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
AH:	Speaking in Language	
Interpreter:	No Judge.	
His Honor:	Okay. You can take a seat. 	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
His Honor:	Ms. Koek, I think that covers the allocutus.	
Ms. Koek:	Your Honor, he has, he also instructed me that he would like to go to school if he is released from custody. 	
His Honor:	Alright. Well, do you want me to ask him? In fairness?	
Ms. Koek:	Yes, your Honor.	
His Honor:	Mr. Tengdui, there’s nothing wrong with that?	
Mr. Tengdui:	No.	
His Honor;	AH, please get up one more time.	
Interpreter: 	Speaking in Language to Juveniles DT & AH	
His Honor:	No, not DT; AH.	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
His Honor:	Now, when you’re, if you’re released and I accept your apology, what do you intend to do, in respect of your future, what do you intend to do?	
Interpreter:	Speaking in Language to Juvenile AH	
AH:	Speaking in Language	
Interpreter:	Your Honor, I will not commit the same crime again and I will go to the church and go to a school.	
His Honor;	Okay.
Ms. Koek, does that cover all your instructions?	
Ms. Koek:	Yes. Yes, your Honor	
His Honor:	Very well. 
Mr. Tengdui, there’s nothing more to be said about any of that?	
Mr. Tengdui:	No.	
His Honor:	I must say my impressions are of the two youths that they are sorry. This is my impression, and they have, that was a, from both of them, a genuine allocutus about what they have said. 
So, they are my observations, Mr. Tengdui, so you know in advance.	

48.	The court made the point to counsel for the offenders that the court had provided the offenders every opportunity to go through the allocutus statement to which counsel for the offenders agreed.
 
49.	The offenders have expressed contrition or remorse to the victim and also to the court in their statements offering to mend their ways in the future by attending church and going to school to receive an education.

50.	In my observations of both juvenile offenders, I was persuaded that their allocutus was genuine, sincere and heartfelt.

51.	I find the offenders’ respective evidence of remorse and contrition genuine.  

52.	The State submitted in oral argument that in effect some weight should be accorded to the offenders’ statements of remorse before the Court on 24 June 2025. 

53.	The court is persuaded by the State’s argument. The submission has force from my assessment and observation of the offenders’ cooperation with police, they took an early guilty plea and they assisted the court well with their statements. 

54.	I propose to give significant weight to their respective allocutus in that the fact that they have been arrested, charged and held in custody for one (1) years and five (5) months already, has provided the necessary insight to both offenders of empathy or understanding as to the effect  their criminal activity has had on the victim and the wider circle of people around them including their parents who were in the gallery of the court observing their young sons accepting accountability for their actions.  

55.	Most certainly they appear to have understood the consequences of their actions which are legally wrong, morally reprehensible and socially contumelious. 

56.	The court observes from their allocutus that their actions were not definitive or pre-planned but were opportunistic as indicated by counsel for the State.  

57.	There is significant and ongoing trauma to the victim that can be inferred from this type of offending by the court in reading her statement in the depositions.

58.	The victim confirmed, what I had already inferred, that is that the trauma associated with the offending has had a devastating ongoing impact on the victim’s life and the shock of being robbed in the early morning of a workday no doubt will continue to do so. 

59.	The court acknowledges the juvenile justice officer Sergeant Gerry Kela prepared the pre-sentence report to assist the court to assess the risk of the offenders re-offending and have provided recommendation for rehabilitation or suspension of a custodial as an alternative for custodial sentencing. 

60.	The offenders came from good Christian background with families are members of the Evangelical Church of PNG. 

61.	The younger juvenile AH has expressed in the allocutus that he has risked his life in prison, and he has learnt it and he is considering going back to school if released from prison. 

62.	The unsigned record of interview relied is contained as part of the police brief tendered by the State in the depositions which I find is consistent with the offenders’ allocutus statements of their contrition for the robbery but also consistent with the fact that during their records of interview no admissions were made in relation to the rape of the victim which was ultimately withdrawn by the State at the trial in the National Court.

63.	In AH’s record of interview at Hawa Prison on 18 March 2024, at Q23-24 and the answers to the questions that “...when she left (meaning the victim), we picked the bilum and in the bilum was K206 cash...”

64.	The above admission by AH is consistent with the agreed facts and not the allegations made by the victim and the contents and monetary allegedly stolen when the juveniles were committed by the Magistrate in the court below.

65.	It is inevitable that the sentence that the court must impose will involve a significant period of detention to be served but will be suspended by the court to comply with the proper sentencing provisions of the Juvenile Justices Act after considering all options under the Act but balancing considerations with general deterrence that the community in Hela Province expects. 

66.	The offenders’ allocutus and pre-trial statements greatly assisted in my informed view about the offenders and will assist the court in appropriate sentencing. 

67.	By being in custody on remand for over a year and five months, I find the offenders have learnt their lessons. 

68.	The court relies on the offenders’ allocutus statement as a true indicator that supports my findings of contrition.

69.	A general deterrence must be part of sentencing against the offender as the expectation of the community in Hela is that robberies by the youth armed with weapons is a known regular occurrence and remain the unacceptable norm that needs to be addressed by sentencing courts.

Structure of these reasons

70.	I will firstly identify the charged matter and then discuss, by reference to my summary of the agreed facts, my analysis of the objective seriousness of the offence and identify any aggravating and/or mitigating factors relevant to that offending. 

71.	The court must now consider both the written submission and the submission that supplement the written submissions in arguendo before the Court heard on 24 July 2025 before proceeding to reasons for sentence.

72.	I am of the firm view that general deterrence requires significant weight in this matter. 

73.	The community must understand that crimes involving armed robbery on a pregnant woman and the victim in this matter, the vulnerable, frail, weak or handicapped, females and elderly cannot exist when vulnerable members of the community remain apprehensive of leaving their homes to attend to their daily chores or responsibilities in Hela Province with the fear that armed youths may rob them in broad daylight which are prevalent in the villages throughout Hela Province and, without limitations, in all the provinces of Papua New Guinea and not expect sentencing court to address issues of armed robbery with stern punishment. 
74.	I assign significant weight to the offenders’ expressions of remorse which reflects that the offence of armed robbery is offensive to the law. 

75.	I find on the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that I grant weight to the offenders’ previous good character. However, I assign little weight on the elder juvenile DT because of his influence on his younger brother AH to commit the offence in a brazen manner in broad daylight along a public road. 

76.	Because of his (AH) young age and good health, I am of the view that rehabilitation, protection of the community and specific deterrence have very limited value.

77.	Thereafter I will seek to identify the offenders’ subjective case, deal with the discount mandated for by the plea, acknowledge that I am sentencing the offenders by today’s standards under the Juvenile Justice Act and that significant trauma was suffered by the victim of this type of offending which is now understood to be much more pronounced than was perhaps understood or accepted in earlier times. 

78.	I will try not to repeat myself as the factors fall into a pattern.

79.	Finally, I will then deal with whether I can identify any “special circumstances” to determine whether the discount to the head sentence ought to be adjusted.

80.	Many matters must be taken into account in fixing a sentence which remain as matters whose proper characterisation may lie somewhere along a line between two extremes. That is inevitably so. 

81.	The matters that must be taken into account in sentencing an offender include many matters of, and concerning, human behaviour. 

82.	It is, therefore, to invite error to present every question for a sentencer who is assessing a matter which is to be taken into account as a choice between extremes, one classified as aggravating and the opposite extreme classified as mitigating. Neither human behaviour, nor fixing of sentences is so simple.
83.	Often where an offender pleads guilty, sentencing procedures are marked by a degree of informality. Usually, an agreed statement of facts, sometimes negotiated between the accused and the prosecution, will be placed before the sentencing judge.

84.	Plea agreements are usually affected by five fundamental principles:
i.	It is the prosecutor, alone, who has the responsibility of deciding the charges to be preferred against an accused person.
ii.	It is the accused person, alone, who must decide whether to plead guilty to the charge preferred.
iii.	It is for the sentencing judge, alone, to decide the sentence to be imposed. 
iv.	There may be an understanding, between the prosecution and the defence, as to evidence that will be led, or admissions that will be made, but that does not bind the judge, except in the practical sense that the judge’s capacity to find facts will be affected by the evidence and the admissions. 
v.	In deciding the sentence, the judge must apply to the facts as found, the relevant law and sentencing principles.

Opportunistic or deliberate

85.	Both counsels agree the offence committed was opportunistic in the circumstances and I do so find that to be true.

Criminal record

86.	This brings me to another thematic matter, that is the question of the offender’s criminal record.  As I have already recorded, both juveniles do not have one.  
87.	Ordinarily, that can be seen to be a mitigating factor, but both AH and DT admitted to the offence to the police in their respective records of interview suggesting that the offenders had no real option other than to plead guilty to a strong prosecution case involving the robbery and accepting that they denied the rape of the victim which fell away at trial.
 
88.	This does not disentitle them to leniency, while elevating the obvious seriousness of the charge.  Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that the offenders had no previous record of conviction, I give the apparent good character of the offenders, given their age and in particular AH who was 13 years at the time of the offence, limited weight but with the relevance necessary under the Juvenile Justice Act that it deserves. 
 
89.	The harsh reality is that their character is, as anything, the paradox that if they were adults the sentences for each would be significantly more severe and would be a finding that would be available to me as the sentencing judge. 

Prospects of Rehabilitation  

90.	Turning then to the next matter, that being the important question of the offenders’ prospects of rehabilitation or the likelihood of reoffending. 
 
91.	I have already discussed this elsewhere in the reasons and I have concluded not only because of the juveniles young ages, but by the operation of the Juvenile Justice Act I must give the weight it deserves in my findings that with compliance by both juveniles of the conditions I will impose, it is my view that both juveniles have a significant prospect of rehabilitation in the future.

92.	There was an opportunity presented to the juveniles to rob a vulnerable member of the community as the victim in this armed robbery, then it was carried out by them.   There is a need for the community to be protected from this offending, as well as a need for general deterrence which are important considerations in the sentencing process.

93.	The same mitigating factors I have identified in the judgment prevail and are relevant.

Juvenile Justice Officer’s Report 

94.	As part of sentencing of the sentencing process under the Juvenile Justice Act, I have considered the report Sergeant Gerry Kela dated 23rd July 2025 and headed “Written Pre Sentence Report” concerning both juveniles which states: - 

1	BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Residence, Family Background, Marriage, Education. Employment, Health, etc0
1, Residence;
The two juvenile offenders mentioned that they have lived all the time with their parents in Korotangi village Hides 4 Komo PNG LNG project Sight. In Komo Holiya Hela Province.

Acceding to the two juveniles they did not go to school. The two have been living and staying around their village ever since they were born and got raised in this part of Hela Province. They never left their village have been there all the time.

2. Family Background (Parents)

The two Juvenile offenders free (sic) told the juvenile officer that all their parents are still alive and all staying back in their village. Korotangi.
Juvenile DT is the last born of the five siblings while juvenile AH too is a juvenile as well. He is also the fifth born of the five born to the family

FAMILY CONCERN
Name of interviewer PA

Relationship mother of first juvenile.

The mother of DT was interviewed as well as the father of AH were interviewed and the two said that the two families are members of the ECPNG churches and do not like their reputation to be stanished (sic). With this in mind the two families surrounded (sic) the two juveniles to Hidges Policemen who are at the project sight (sic).

3. Marital Status	
On two separate interviews with the two juveniles up in Hawa Correctional Service and here in the National court holding cells both juveniles are sorry for what the two did on 14th August 2024.As juveniles they regret what the two did

4. Education.
The two juveniles have not attended any school at all.

5. Employment
The two juveniles have never worked anywhere.

6. Financial Situation
The two juvenile admitted that they both depend on their parents for their survival none of the two work.

7. Health
The two juveniles are physically and medically fet (sic) have no problems with their health.

11. Future plans
(a)Residence
Both juveniles if given the opportunity looking forward to go back to their village as they missed their village.

(b) Education
The juveniles have no plans to go to school.

Financial situation
The juveniles have not done any marketing yet.
8. Community History
Name of the community leader and his opinion 
PR W of Evangelical church of Papua (ECP) Hinges

Information
The local church PW of the Hinges 4 church thinks the two juveniles were good boys and didn’t think they would do such things like holding up people or steal from anybody. The two boys do go to his church as well.

9. Victims View
The victim EU opinion was not obtained as there was (sic) no contact details of the victim. Secondly time was not enough time to go and visit the victim to get her opinion.
Referee of the community leader.

10. Previous Criminal Record
The two juveniles don’t have any previous convictions.

11 Assessment

A.Personal Background
The two juvenile’s age and personal details
Circumstance of the offence committed

D. Offenders Attitude
The two juvenile offenders submitted well at all levels of the law and justice systems. Coporated (sic) well with the immediate family members who surrender them to Police. In the Police station up in Komo submitted to the Detectives in the interrogation process as well till the juveniles were remanded in custody in hawa as well.

E  Possible Threat to a community
The two juvenile offenders are good juveniles as demonstrated in their attitude when the two submitted well.
1V Suitability for Probation Supervision
“Your honor”, after collecting all the necessary information in compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act 2014 .The two juveniles now before this honorable court are capable of a non-custodial sentence. However the disadvantage of a non-custodial sentencing is that this Province does not have a Probation Officer in this Province,

The Probation suitability is done in regard to the following assessments
I.	The two offenders are first time offenders who were handed to the authorities by their own family members. The two submitted to authorities at all levels of the legal system.

II.	The two juveniles poses no threat to the community and the victim of the crime.

III.	The normal alternate conflict resolution (ACR) means are available 
These are the mitigating factors, however, your honor, the aggravating factor is that the victim was an innocent travelling member of the public. All members of the public have the right to use all roads and tracks without been (sic) intimidated or having any kind of fear whiles using our roads and tracks are meant to be used freely without question or query. All roads and tracks are to be used by all any time covenant (sic) for the road user.’ 

95.	My findings on sentence relevant to the recommendations made in the above report are as follows: 

i.	Both juveniles are sorry and regret committing the offence of armed robbery;
ii.	Both juveniles are first time offenders who were submitted to the appropriate authorities by their own family members;
iii.	Both juveniles have cooperated with immediate family members and officers during the time of their arrest, detention and custody;
iv.	Both juveniles have demonstrated good character and attitude; 
v.	They (juveniles) are good candidates for a non – custodial sentence, however if released on a non – custodial sentence, Hela Province does not have the benefit of a probation officer to monitor the sentence of the juveniles. 

96.	I find on the question of general deterrence in the ultimate paragraph in the above report significant which states: 

“…These are the mitigating factors, however, your honor, the aggravating factor is that the victim was an innocent travelling member of the public. All members of the public have the right to use all roads and tracks without been (sic) intimidated or having any kind of fear whiles using our roads and tracks are meant to be used freely without question or query. All roads and tracks are to be used by all any time covenant (sic) for the road user…”

97.	The prevalence of the armed robbery by youths, the frequency of civilians being armed with dangerous weapons such as bush knives and axes in public within the province calls for general deterrence when such weapons are brazenly put to use to commit offences.  As put by juvenile justice officer, Sergeant Kela, a civilian should feel free to use a public road or track without the fear of being intimidated or harmed at any time.

98.	Counsel for the State submitted in court that the law should change, to which I agree. The State should enact legislation prohibiting the carrying of bush knives, axes and other potentially dangerous implements from public thoroughfares and within close proximity to towns and village to reduce the risk of crime.

Victim Impact Statement

99.	I intend to rely on the victim’s statement in the depositions tendered.

100.	It is very important for the court and the community to be reminded and to understand that it is now well accepted that crimes of this nature are not just awful at the time they are committed, but they can have serious consequences on the victims and those impacts can be expected to be lasting.  

101.	In saying that, I do not want there to be any suggestion that I accept the conduct of this crime before me was any more acceptable to the community at the time of offending than it is today.
  
102.	Impact statements may be received and considered by the court to understand the consequences of the offence of robbery on the victim. 

103.	A victim impact statement may be taken into account by a court in connection with the determination of the punishment for the offence on the basis that the harmful impact of the victim’s response to the offenders on the members of the victim’s immediate family is an aspect of harm done to the community.

104.	The State tendered the depositions without objection for the purpose of sentencing which included the victim’s statement which I will rely upon as a victim’s impact statement dated 4th August 2024.

105.	The statement was signed by the victim and certified with the following jurat:

“I EU certify that this statement of 2 pages is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I make it knowing that if it be tendered in evidence, I will be liable to prosecution if I have knowingly stated anything that is false or misleading in any particular”
 
106.	The oath of the victim to tell the truth under compulsion of being prosecuted for providing false facts provides the court with comfort that the contents of the victim statement stating the facts relevant to the agreed facts are facts the court can rely upon as true the burden of proof necessary and beyond reasonable doubt.

107.	It is necessary for the court to refer to the contents of the statement to examine the agreed facts and the admissions made by the offenders more closely and in the proper context on sentencing.

108.	The police statement of the victim EU stated that: 

“… I sense fear dwell inside me, so I had to gain quicker walking pace, but my preserve (sic) pregnancy made me unfortunate to run fast. I made in downhill and up the ridge, but the culprits caught up with me at the ridge of the road…
…I was crying as I walked up the road and met my brother in law along the way and reported to him. I then walked straight to her uncle’s house at Well Pad B and reported him. I rang my husband what happened to me and then we came down to the scene and further down to HQ 3 searching for the culprits, but they fled. There we reported to the Police on duty patrol…
…These culprits assaulted me, robbed … without my consent and will. I am pregnant ... I am feeling worried now about how my husband and family are thing (sic) about me on an incident that was done upon me without my consent and will. Thus I wantthe (sic) culprits to be prosecuted in the court of law and be punished.”

109.	A significant and understandable theme that emerges from the victim’s statements is the fear and vulnerability felt by the victim on her morning walk along a public road while heavily pregnant and alone. I have considered and taken these statements into account to the extent permitted by law. 

110.	However, I should clearly indicate that I would have arrived at the sentence I intend to impose even without the benefit of the victim’s sentiments expressed in this way from my own findings of fact.

111.	I find beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the offence the victim was a married woman with child, she cried after being robbed, one of her fingers was cut in the incident, her string bag containing a sum of money and personal items had been stolen from her, that the offenders admitted to robbing the victim and that she wanted the law to deal with them (that is the offenders). 

112.	It can hardly be controversial that in robbing the victim, the offenders must be taken to have known but not fully understand the injury, emotional and psychological harm and loss that their actions were likely to cause to victim. 

113.	The presence or absence of statements from victims of the offenders’ crime does not alter that obvious conclusion, even though in this case those statements eloquently articulate what common experience and understanding of human affairs would otherwise lead one to expect. The significance and prevalence of the robbery and its consequences in a community caused by youths is not only to be measured by the suffering of those left to endure it, but the Hela Province at large as a community. 

Comparable cases 

114.	I have now been taken to a series of cases as comparable cases which are contained in both counsel’s submissions.  They have given me an opportunity to reflect on and to consider crimes on both an indicative basis and a comparable basis.  Obviously, enough of these types of crimes involve a wide range of different conduct, have subjective outcomes by the courts and therefore such cases can only be used as a guide. 

Objective seriousness 

115.	The offenders’ state of mind at that time they robbed an 8 – month pregnant woman is relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence.  I find that the offenders robbed the victim by a voluntary act performed by them with the intention of taking money from the victim and threatening her with a bush knife to get their way.

116.	An intention to commit an offence is a matter that turns generally to increase the objective seriousness of the offence of robbery armed with an offensive weapon  in contrast to robbery without a weapon that was caused by an act or an omission that was caused by intent to frighten or otherwise scare the victim or was reckless in the circumstances.  

117.	I find the use of the weapon categorizes the offence as the most serious kind. 

118.	The offenders’ state of mind at the time robbed pregnant woman on a street used by members of the public early in the morning is relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence.

119.	I find that the offenders a voluntary act performed by them with the intention of making the victim submit to their will. 

120.	I find that the offenders planned to rob the victim intentionally at some point in time beyond reasonable doubt and they found the opportunity to do so on 5 March 2024.

121.	Assessing the objective seriousness of a crime is a synthesis or amalgamation of relevant factors touching and concerning the circumstances of its commission undertaken with the benefit of judicial, legal and life experiences. 

122.	Reasonable minds may differ as to the conclusion. 

123.	Robbery when armed carries life imprisonment and is uncontroversially a serious crime when referring to the statutory penalty of life imprisonment as punishment. 

124.	It is my view that robbery committed to an innocent member of the community is an objectively very serious crime beyond reasonable doubt. 

125.	Despite some evident misunderstanding, it is not necessary in dealing with this issue to state or to describe where on some hypothetical scale of seriousness a particular offence falls. 

126.	Indeed, references to where, when compared to the often-cited middle of the range of objective seriousness, a particular offence falls are ironically so replete with potentially subjective judicial idiosyncrasies that verbalising the conclusion is usually less helpful than might be hoped.
127.	The reference to comparative tables of cases from senior judges in criminal matter on sentencing are useful to consider. It is their decision; however, the burden falls squarely on me as the presiding judge to sentence the offender. 
 
128.	The sentence must also reflect deterrence against robbery being committed by offenders on citizens of Hela going about their daily routine without fear of being robbed and to protect the citizens of Hela Province as a community I am duty bound to serve.

129.	It is the responsibility of a judge passing sentence to indicate clearly his or her view of the objective seriousness of the offence being considered. 

130.	It is in my view preferable when doing so, and sufficient for me in this case, to say what factors support my conclusion that the robbing of a pregnant woman by the offenders is an objectively very serious offence beyond reasonable doubt.

131.	In that last respect, and bearing in mind that I have to be satisfied of factors adverse to the offenders  to the criminal standard, and in the absence of direct evidence, I nevertheless find that the offenders robbed the woman with intent and operating in their mind, with the intention of taking the victim’s hard earned cash.

132.	I am satisfied to that standard because I consider my conclusion to be the only rational inference that the facts permit me to draw beyond reasonable doubt.

133.	The offenders committed the offence primarily for the selfish and cynical purpose of eliminating the need to work for money and take it from someone else. 
 
134.	It remains the sad fact that they left the victim in shock with memories the victim was treated by the offenders as completely dispensable.

Subjective circumstances relevant to the offenders’ time in custody 

135.	I find the following facts proven beyond reasonable doubt on sentencing.

136.	The offenders were 13 years (AH) and 17 years (DT) at the time of the offence and are currently 14 years of age (AH) and 18 years of age (DT). They are both not married. 

137.	There is a conflict on the fact of whether both juveniles have undertaken formal education. The juvenile officer’s pre – sentence report states that they (juveniles) have not undertaken formal education. The counsel for the juvenile offenders, Ms. Koek in her submission states that the juvenile AH has been educated up to grade one and the juvenile DT has been educated up to grade three level. I accept Ms Koek’s submission in respect to the education levels of the juveniles to be true. 

138.	The pre – sentence report states that the offenders have no plans to go to school. This is contradictory to Ms. Koek’s submissions in which she submits both offenders intend to continue their formal education if given the chance. I accept Ms. Koek’s submission as it is supported by the allocutus of both offenders AH and DT. 

139.	I find that both offenders intend to go to school if released from custody.

140.	The offenders have never been formally employed. Both juveniles rely on their parents for survival. 

141.	The offenders have no prior criminal convictions.

142.	The offenders have been on remand in police custody and since their arrests in relation to the offence from 6 & 7 March 2024 at Hawa Correctional Institution.

143.	I take judicial notice from my own observations of Hawa Prison from my mandatory inspection of the prison in late April 2025 as Justice of the National Court and Judge Administrator of Hela Province that the conditions are harsh, there is overcrowding and a lack of amenities, young offenders are placed into the general prison population and generally the standards of prison comfort, provisions and amenities are chronically poor.

144.	I take the prison conditions at Hawa Prison into account in the offenders’ favour on sentence.

145.	The offenders appear to be physically fit and in good health.

146.	The offenders have no record of any previous convictions, and I find that they are young people of prior good character and for associated reasons are highly unlikely ever to re-offend.

147.	I consider that the offenders have good to moderate prospects of rehabilitation in the circumstances and improves their commitment to their learning skills.

148.	By committing the offence, the offenders now rely on the support from their immediate family members. 

149.	I find the offenders’ statements in court in relation to their remorse and/or contrition are genuine and heartfelt.

150.	The offenders did apologise to the victim of their offences in open court from the evidence I have considered.

Suspension

151.	In the case of State v IW (A Juvenile) (supra) at paragraph 49, Her Honor Wawun – Kuvi AJ, laid out the principles regarding suspension: 

i.	“Suspension is not an act of leniency but is in the interest of the community and to promote rehabilitation and prevent recidivism: The State v Kagai [1987].
ii.	Sentencing is a community response and so the views must be obtained in a pre-sentence report. Without the report, the Court cannot suspend sentence: Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2003], State v Winston [2003] and Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998].
iii.	The community’s view must be obtained, if it is intended that the offender be placed back into the community: Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2003], State v Winston [2003]and Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998]
iv.	Suspension pursuant to section 19 (6) of the Code should only be exercised in three broad categories, (1) promotes personal deterrence, reformation or rehabilitation of the offender, (2) encourages the repayment or restitution of stolen money or goods and (3) imprisonment would cause excessive degree of suffering, for example, because of bad physical and mental health: Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986].
v.	The factors that were considered to lower the sentence should not be the same used to suspend sentence. It amounts to double discount in the prisoner’s favor: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981].
vi.	In cases where the offence is prevalent, only in exceptional cases can the circumstance of the case override imprisonment: Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979].
vii.	What is exceptional in each case is infinite. Each sentencing court in the exercise of discretion makes that determination: State v Malko [2018].
viii.	Evidence of good character supports suspension. There must be actual evidence and not based on submissions that the offender has good character: State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320.
ix.	In violent offences, the views of the victim are important when considering suspending sentence: State v Kogen [2016], State v Wamingi [2013] and State v FSD [2011]
x.	Partial suspension pursuant to section 19 (f) of the Code should be exercised on proper basis: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412.
xi.	The procedure under section 19(f) of the Code is for the prisoner to enter into recognizance first prior to commencing the portion that the prisoner was ordered to serve: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981].
xii.	For offences with minimum penalty provisions, it is open to the Court to consider suspension after imposing the minimum penalty. This is dependent on the peculiar circumstance of each case: The State v. Aruve Waiba [1994] and Dambui v The State [2003].”

152.	Following the above authority, I find that any incarceration should be suspended in the circumstances. 

Sentencing 

153.	The purposes of sentencing a juvenile are to:

i.	Encourage the juvenile to understand the consequences of and be accountable for the harm caused by his or her actions;

ii.	Promote an individual response which is appropriate to the juvenile’s circumstances and proportionate to the circumstances surrounding the offence;
iii.	Promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of the juvenile into the family and community;

iv.	Ensure protection of the public. 
154.	I take into account whthe statement of Her Honor, Berrigan J in paragraphs 29 – 31 of the State v SE (A Juvenile) (supra) with regard to sentencing principles in these circumstances: 

“…The purposes of sentencing a juvenile are to: encourage the juvenile to understand the consequences of and be accountable for the harm caused by his or her actions; promote an individual response which is appropriate to the juvenile’s circumstances and proportionate to the circumstances surrounding the offence; promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of the juvenile into the family and community; and ensure protection of the public: s. 76(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The primary consideration on sentence, as for all actions concerning a juvenile, are the best interests of the juvenile: s. 6(b) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The sentence shall be determined in accordance with the principles set out in ss. 6 and 76(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act. 

Any sentence imposed shall be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the juvenile for that offence.  The sentence shall be the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the purposes set out in s. 76(1), and be the one that is most likely to rehabilitate the juvenile and reintegrate him into society whilst also promoting a sense of responsibility in the juvenile, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to the victim and the community. The sentence shall have regard to the juvenile’s age and limited capacity to appreciate the consequences of his actions, and shall not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would have been appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence in similar circumstances. If appropriate juveniles shall be permitted to remain in the community.  Deprivation of liberty shall be used only as a measure of last resort, and for the shortest period necessary to achieve the purposes in 76(1): s. 76(2)(a) to (f) of the Act…”

155.	Applying the above application of the Juvenile Justice Act, I find that detention for the offenders is appropriate with the necessary suspension on conditions I set out in the order below. 

Punishment, retribution and deterrence

156.	I consider the purposes of sentencing the offender for which a court may impose a custodial sentence on an offender are as follows—

i.	to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence;
ii.	to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences;
iii.	to protect the community from the offender;
iv.	to promote the rehabilitation of the offender to re-enter the community;
v.	 to make the offender accountable for his or her actions;
vi.	to denounce the conduct of the offender;
vii.	to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community; and
viii.	to exercise the discretion of the court’s power to identify how to punish the offender while balancing the offender’s best interest during the transition from full time custody, if imposed, to entering the community upon the granting of parole or serving the entire sentence of imprisonment.

157.	The actions of the offenders were neither spontaneous nor unavoidable. 

158.	It is a crime that should never be permitted to offer the slightest encouragement to any person similarly placed or similarly minded in the broader community. 
159.	The offenders’ sentence should reflect the disapprobation with which their self-indulgent brutality must be viewed by society in Hela Province and in the broader community across Papua New Guinea. 

160.	In plain terms, it is not acceptable to rob members of the community. It is unacceptable lawlessness and represents a proper vehicle for general deterrence.

161.	In contrast, I find there is no need to sentence the offenders in a way that specifically deters them from similar reoffending.

162.	There is no reasonably foreseeable prospect that they will ever reoffend. 

163.	Time will govern their future conduct.

Extra curial punishment

164.	I find that the offenders have endured extra curial punishment for their time on remand in Hawa Prison that is a correctional institution which is barely fit for purpose.

165.	The offenders have the benefit of a pre-sentence report to assist the court in sentencing.

166.	I note with the necessary opprobrium that the National Court remains hindered in administering the rule of law in Tari suffering with a recurring disadvantage during the criminal sittings which commenced on 2 June 2025 when these proceedings occurred. 

167.	Accordingly, I have also taken these matters into account in the offenders’ favour and accede to the proposition that the offenders should be granted some concession on sentence.

168.	Relevantly, I discount their head sentence by 5% established by this finding beyond reasonable doubt.

Delay

169.	In the present case, the delay in their prosecution as juveniles, committal and being brought to trial before the National Court in June 2025 in breach of guaranteed right to be brought to trial within four (4) months after committing the offence under the Constitution regrettable.

170.	The delays in fixing the trial for hearing trial is a systemic and chronic issue in Papua New Guinea and are attributable to the operation of the criminal justice system and the relevant administration due to a lack of necessary funding by the State of the courts and the lack of personnel to provide pre-sentence reports and other necessary instrumentalities I have mentioned in this judgment. 

171.	In the relevant sense on sentencing, it means that I discount their head sentence by further 5%.

Special circumstances

172.	Once the head sentence is determined by the court, the pre-custodial period served on remand and in police custody of the offenders of 1 year and 5 months should be deducted from the head sentence in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice Act from the date of arrests on 6 & 7 March 2024

173.	The findings in this judgment are clear that beyond reasonable doubt the offenders robbed a pregnant woman at knife point as she was going about her daily business warranting custodial sentences of both AH and DT in the circumstances.

174.	Anything less would not in my view accord with a proper application of the sentencing principles for which the CCA and Juvenile Justices Act provide.

Disposition

175.	AH and DT are juveniles with their lives ahead of them if they remain free of criminal conduct.
176.	I am nevertheless required to impose a sentence that satisfies the community’s expectations of punishment, retribution and denunciation. 

177.	A just and appropriate sentence must accord due recognition to the human dignity of the victims of armed robbery and the legitimate interest of the general community in the denunciation and punishment of juveniles who use offensive weapons to rob members of the public in broad daylight with the belief that they have impunity. 

178.	Even though such expectations must be tempered by the need to extend mercy where appropriate, I recognise that the unavoidable prospect is that the offenders will be subjected to suspended sentences and if they reoffend, they will spend time in custody.

Order

179.	AH and DT of Korotangi village in the Hela Province, for the robbery you both have committed on the 5th of March 2024 on the spline road between HQ3, Car  Wash and Oil Pad B at Hides 4 in Komo, Hela Province, I sentence DT to imprisonment for 5 years commencing on 7th March 2024 when you were arrested and expiring on 7th March 2029 taking into account your time in custody on remand to date and I sentence AH to imprisonment for 3 years commencing on 6th March 2024 when you were arrested and expiring on 6th March 2027 taking into account your time in custody and on remand to date.

Time in custody

180.	As I have said, the offender has been in custody solely relating to the matter since 6th & 7th March 2024.

181.	I have determined that it is appropriate for their sentences to commence on the dates referred to above.

Orders

182.	The Court hereby sentences each of the offenders AH and DT as follows:

JUVENILE OFFENDER AH:

Length of sentence: 			3 years in a juvenile detention centre
Pre – sentence Period deducted: 	1 year, 5 months
Period of sentence suspended: 	1 year and 7 months 
Length of Sentence to be Served: Nil as sentenced suspended on conditions set out below		
Date sentence will expire: 		6 March 2027
Place of Custody: 			Sentenced suspended 
Conditions placed on offender AH:	The sentence has been suspended on conditions that the offender:
i.	Remains of good behavior during the suspended sentence and does not reoffend. 
ii.	Returns to school to recommend education.
iii.	The father of AH is to take care, control and supervision of AH during the suspended sentence.
iv.	AH report to Sergeant Kela on a 6 monthly basis to report on his progress. 
v.	The victim is to be repaid the amount stolen by either AH or his parents of K 206.00 by no later than 30th September 2025.

JUVENILE OFFENDER DT:

Length of sentence: 	5 years at Hawa Correctional Service Institution in Tari, Hela Province
Pre – sentence Period deducted: 	1 year, 5 months
Period of sentence suspended: 	3 years and 7 months 
Length of Sentence to be Served: 	Nil as sentenced suspended on conditions set out below		
Date sentence will expire: 	7 March 2029
Place of Custody: 	Sentenced suspended 
Conditions placed on offender AH:	The sentence has been suspended on conditions that the offender:
i.	Remains of good behavior during the suspended sentence and does not reoffend. 
ii.	Returns to school to recommend education.
iii.	The mother of DT is to take care, control and supervision of DT during the suspended sentence.
iv.	DT report to Sergeant Kela on a 6 monthly basis to report on his progress. 
v.	The victim is to be repaid the amount stolen by either DT or his parents of K 206.00 by no later than 30th September 2025.

I publish my reasons.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Juvenile offenders AH and DT: Public Solicitor