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

State v Patem [2025] PGNC 513; N11660 (15 October 2025)

N11660

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 447 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

CHRIS PATEM

KEREVAT: CHRISTENSEN J
7, 15 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCES – Aggravated robbery – s 386 Criminal Code – plea of guilty – entry to home while armed with bush knife – in company – nonlife threatening injuries caused to two victims – money and phone stolen – youthful offender – compensation – circumstances of aggravation account for applicable maximum penalty – avoidance of double punishment – imprisonment with partial suspension

Cases cited
Acting Public Prosecutor v Taganis [1982] PNGLR 299
Anis v The State [2000] PGSC 12, SC642
Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1983] PNGLR 93
Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 65
Kassman v The State [2004] PGSC 9, SC759
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC564
Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
State v James [2009] PGNC 134
State v Jerry [2022] PGNC 427, N9769
State v Kaka [2021] PGNC 309; N9120
State v Negol [2005] PGNC 148, N2801
State v Tongo [2022] PGNC 601; N10349

Counsel
L Rangan for the State
N Katosingkalara for the offender

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1. CHRISTENSEN J: The offender, Chris Patem, has pleaded guilty and been convicted of an offence of aggravated robbery contrary to s 386(1), (2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code. This is the decision on sentence.
   
2. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after 30 years.
   
3. The Court has a discretion in relation to the sentence to be imposed, and may suspend the sentence after the offender has served such portion of the term that the court thinks proper: s 19 Criminal Code.
   
4. It is well recognised that the maximum penalty is reserved for the worst case and the sentence to be imposed is to be proportionate to the circumstances of the offence: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 65; Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1983] PNGLR 93. Each case is to be determined on its own facts and circumstances: Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38.
   

Facts of the offending

5. In accordance with the brief facts, the offending occurred on 29 September 2023 in Rabaul Town.
   
6. Between 10pm and midnight, while armed with a short bush knife, the offender and about five other males entered the home of two people. Property was stolen from both victims, been a cell phone valued at K49.00 and K20.00 in cash from one victim, and a gun torch valued at K49.95 from the other victim.
   
7. During the course of the robbery, the offender cut the right hand of one of the victims, and the right wrist of another of the victims. This is one of the circumstances of aggravation of the offence.
   
8. The robbery is also aggravated by the use of the bush knife, being a dangerous or offensive weapon, and by the offender being in the company of the other males.
   
9. The offender denied any knowledge of the offence in his record of interview. The offender was known to the victims, and they identified him.
   
10. The other persons allegedly involved have not been charged.
    

Allocutus

11. After his plea of guilty, the offender pleaded for the court’s mercy in the allocutus. He apologised to the court and the two victims, and explained the compensation he has made.
    
12. The offender asked the court to impose a good behaviour order, explaining that he is currently a grade 11 student at Don Bosco Technical School and he wants to continue his study.
    
    

Antecedents and criminal history

13. The offender is 23 years of age. He is not married. He is from Malaguna No 1 in Rabaul and is the only child in his family. He obtained grade 10 schooling at Vunabosco Technical Secondary School. He is unemployed. He has the support of his parents, and will return to the family home.
    
14. The offender has no criminal history.
    

Period in custody before sentence

15. The offender was first detained from 29 September 2023 to 26 October 2023 when he was released on National Court bail. He absconded while on bail and was re-apprehended on 15 July 2023. He was remanded in custody until sentence. A total period of 121 days (4 months, 1 day) has been spent in custody before sentence.
    
16. Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 provides that the court has a discretion to deduct from any term of imprisonment imposed any period in custody in connection with the offence before sentence. In this matter, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deduct this period from the sentence to be imposed.
    

Submissions

17. Both counsels referred the court to the sentencing guidelines provided in Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271, updated in Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26, SC564, Anis v The State [2000] PGSC 12, SC642, and Kassman v The State [2004] PGSC 9, SC759. These authorities provided that the generally accepted starting point for the robbery of a house, as occurred here, is 10 years imprisonment.
    

Defence counsel

18. On behalf of the offender, it was submitted that there are mitigatory factors of the plea of guilty, the offender being a first time offender, and that compensation has been paid. It was submitted that there was limited aggravation in the offending given the low value of the property stolen and that the wounds sustained were not life threatening.
    
19. The defence counsel submitted that a head sentence of five years imprisonment was therefore appropriate. It was submitted that a partial suspension with recognizance to keep and be of good behaviour be imposed. The reconciliation with the victims was submitted as demonstrating the restoration of peace within the community and that the offender’s return to the community would provide deterrence from further offending.
    
20. The authority of Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91 as to the appropriateness of a suspended sentence was relied on. That is, that the three main broad categories in which a suspension of a sentence under s 19(6) of the Criminal Code may be appropriate are:
    
    • (a) where suspension will promote the personal deterrence, reformation and/ or rehabilitation of the offender;
    • (b) where suspension will promote the repayment or restitution of stolen money or goods; and
    • (c) where imprisonment would cause an excessive degree of suffering to the particular offender because, for example, of his bad physical or mental health.
      

Prosecution

21. The prosecution submitted, in accordance with the Supreme Court authority, that a sentence of 10 years imprisonment was warranted. It was submitted that this was a very serious example of this offence, with it having been committed while in company, a knife caused wounding to two people, and it was committed in a home during the night. The prevalence of such offending, and necessary deterrence, was emphasised.
    
22. It was accepted by the prosecution that the sentence to be imposed is to take into account that there was a plea of guilty and the time spent in custody. It was accepted that a partially suspended sentence may be appropriate.
    

Matters in mitigation

23. The offender initially denied the offending, but he came to express his remorse and contrition by his plea of guilty and in his allocutus. The guilty plea also saved court resources and reduced the trauma for the victims in not having to give evidence.
    
24. He has no previous convictions.
    
25. He is still a somewhat youthful man. While he is already 23 years of biological age, he is not married. He has intentions to continue his study and there are prospects for him to rehabilitate. He has the support of his family.
    

Compensation

26. On 14 August 2025, the offender engaged in reconciliation with the victims at the Rabaul Police Station. An amount of K500.00 in cash and ten param tabu was paid to the victims. This is mitigatory on sentence in the sense that compensation has a punitive effect on the accused: Acting Public Prosecutor v Taganis [1982] PNGLR 299.
    

Matters in aggravation

27. The injury caused to one victim was a 3 cm laceration to the right wrist. He required medical treatment, and the photographs show it to have been a wound with some depth.
    
28. The injuries caused to the other victim, as described in the medical report, included lacerations to his head, left arm, and right arm. However, the plea of guilty was entered in relation to an injury to the right hand. The medical report describes the injury to the right arm as been a 5 cm scratch of the forearm, which was not actively bleeding.
    
29. Any robbery that involves causing physical injury is more serious, but this circumstance provides for the increase in the applicable maximum penalty, as do the other circumstances of aggravation as relied upon in the charge. I am to be cautious to not ‘double punish’ the offender as a result.
    
30. Here, the injuries caused were not the most serious that can occur from those caused by a bush knife, but they were still of sufficient seriousness to require medical treatment. They were not though life-threatening injuries.
    
31. There were a relatively large number of males involved in the robbery. They entered the home of the victims. The value of the property stolen was not though significant.
    

Comparable cases

32. The defence counsel assisted the Court with the following cases:
    

33. The prosecution assisted the court with the following case:
    

34. In addition, I have had regard to State v James [2009] PGNC 134 in which an offender pleaded guilty to an offence of aggravated robbery. He entered a house in the night with three other people. They were armed with a machete, shotguns, and knives. The victim was held at gun point and a mobile phone and K90 was stolen. No physical injuries were caused. The offender was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in hard labour, with the period in custody before sentence deducted.
    
35. The circumstances of the aggravated robbery involved more serious weapons, but there were no physical injuries were caused. The amount of property stolen was similar.
    

Consideration

36. A serious offence was committed, but not one that in all of the circumstances warrants the maximum penalty being imposed.
    
37. Offending of the type that occurred is of concern to the community. Offenders who chose to engage in acts of stealing with violence must understand that there will be stern sentences of imprisonment imposed.
    
38. The Supreme Court provides a starting point of 10 years imprisonment as the robbery was one done of a house. The entry to a victim’s home is particularly serious. The victims will have experienced not only the theft of their items, but also trauma from the circumstances in which the items were stolen. Fortunately, the value of the items stolen was not significant.
    
39. The violence involved injuries been caused to two victims, with the use of a bush knife. While not the most serious form of weapon that may be used in an offence of aggravated robbery, it is still an implement readily capable of causing injury, as it did here. Fortunately, the injuries were not life threatening, but two separate victims were harmed. They were met with a number of offenders in their home.
    
40. Having regard to all of the sentencing considerations, I sentence the offender to 8 years of imprisonment in hard labour. I deduct the period served in custody before sentence.
    
41. It remains to be considered whether any or all of the sentence should be suspended. The seriousness of the offence is such that a wholly suspended sentence is not appropriate.
    
42. As to a partial suspension, the offender pleaded guilty and he has expressed his remorse and contrition to the court and to the victims, including with payment of compensation. I am satisfied that he has come to understand the seriousness of his conduct and that he has been deterred from engaging in such behaviour again. He has intentions to continue his education. He has not previously offended. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to partially suspend the sentence to promote his personal deterrence and rehabilitation.
    

ORDERS

43. For those reasons, the following orders are made:
    
    • (1) I confirm the conviction entered for the offence of aggravated robbery contrary to s 386(1), (2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code.
      
    • (2) The offender is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in hard labour.
      
    • (3) A period of 121 days is deducted from the sentence, resulting in a sentence of 7 years, 8 months and 2 days imprisonment.
      
    • (4) Of that balance, 3 years of the sentence is suspended on condition that he enter into his own recognisance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the balance of his sentence.
      
    • (5) Leaving a balance of 4 years, 8 months and 2 days imprisonment to be served.
      

Sentenced accordingly
________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor