N11731
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 487 OF 2025

BETWEEN:
THE STATE

AND:
JACOB WANI

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI, J
6-7 & 21NOVEMBER 2025; 23 FEBRUARY & 5 MARCH 2026

CRIMINAL LAW-trial-sentence- armed robbery, s386(1)(2)(b), criminal code-robbery of motor vehicle on street- Victim had taken offender from his province to another province under the pretext of a legitimate hire car arrangement- Robbed of motor vehicle and  personal items were stolen in the night- Use of Firearm and in company- Driven from one province  to another province for the purpose of withdrawing all the monies in the victim’s bank card- Victim’s PIN number was obtained under threat-Victim left in the dark in an isolated area in a different province-Sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
Cases cited
Taha v The State (2025) SC2759
Pori v State [2007] SC912 
Stuard Kepu v The State, Unreported Judgment, SCR 21 of 2007
Peter v State [2007] SC894
Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759
State v Ngasele [2003] SC731
Tau Jim Anis and Others v The State (2002) SC564
Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487 
Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
State v Yaleba [2022] N10015 
State v David [2021] N9131 
State v Dominic [2013] N5407
State v Yandi [2010] N4064
State v Sengi [2009] N3692
State v Morgan (No.2) [2007] N3876
State v Ago [2004] N2673

Counsel

P Matana & L Maru, for the State
V Move, for the offender

SENTENCE

1.	WAWUN-KUVI J:   Between 14 and 15 April 2024, under the pretext of a legitimate car hire arrangement, the prisoner lured the unsuspecting victim from Goroka to Banz, where he and his accomplices held up the victim at gunpoint and robbed him of his motor vehicle. The victim and his driver were then forced at gunpoint to the back of the bus. He gave up the PIN for his bank card under threats of violence. He and his driver were then driven between Banz and Mt Hagen, where the offender and his accomplices proceeded to withdraw monies from the bank card. After emptying the account, the victim was then taken to Banz and released. The offender and his accomplices drove off with the motor vehicle, which they later sold to a person in Tari. They had also stolen the victim's Samsung mobile phone. The victim reported the matter, and with the assistance of police, recovered his bus about four months later. The offender was arrested and charged. He was convicted after a trial on the charge of armed robbery under s 386 (1)(2)(a)(b) of the Criminal Code for the robbery of the bus and other personal properties totalling K108,794.00. Section 7 (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code was invoked to join him to his accomplices.
Penalty
2.	The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
3.	The maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious case: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.
Sentencing guidelines
4.	Sentencing guidelines assist in sentencing but do not curtail sentencing discretion. Each case is decided by its own peculiar set of facts: Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487
5.	 The facts of this case show that it is the robbery of a vehicle on the road.

6.	In Gimble v The State [1988-89] [1988-89] PNGLR 271, this category of robbery would attract a starting point of 5 years. Some 10 years later, the starting point was increased by three years in Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564. Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642 reaffirmed Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998). The starting point of robbery of a vehicle on the road is 8 years.
7.	However, I note the recent statement by the Supreme Court in Taha v The State (2025) SC 2759, which states that the sentences in Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271, Tau Jim Anis and Others v The State (2002) SC564 and Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759 may be regarded as outdated, given the prevalence of aggravated robbery.
Comparable cases and sentencing range
8.	Counsel for the State submits for a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment. There are no comparable cases submitted by the State.
9.	Counsel for the offender submits a sentence between the range of 5 and 10 years imprisonment. She submits the following comparable cases:
10.	State v Giru [2018] N7478, Miviri AJ:  The offenders pleaded guilty to attempt robbery under s 387(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code. They attempted to rob a vehicle on the road by setting up a roadblock. They were armed with guns and knives and discharged the firearm which struck one of the passengers. The offenders were aged 18 and 19. They were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended. 
11.	State v Yandi [2010] N4064, David J: The offender pleaded guilty. He was in company with another. They boarded a PMV under the pretext of being passengers. When the PMV stopped the offender removed a bush knife and cut one of the passengers. His accomplice took out a gun and pointed it at the driver. They stole K1, 040 in cash and K2000 worth of properties belonging to the passengers. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
12.	State v Sengi [2009] N3692, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty. He and three of his accomplices boarded a PMV under the pretext of being passengers. When the PMV made a stop, one of his accomplices grabbed the bus crew and threatened him with a knife and ran off with K15 cash. The offender was caught by the passengers. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
13.	State v Morgan (No.2) [2007] N3876, Kandakasi J: The offenders were convicted following a trial. The offenders were part of a group of men who held up a vehicle on the road at gun point and then drove off with it. They were sentenced to 15 years for armed robbery of the vehicle.
14.	The comparable cases submitted by counsel for the offender demonstrate a range between 4 and 15 years imprisonment. State v Giru [2018] (supra) is distinct as it involves a conviction for attempted robbery and the offenders were young first-time offenders who pleaded guilty. 
15.	The Supreme Court, in reviewing sentences in similar cases, have confirmed sentences of 10 years imprisonment. The cases are:
16.	Pori v State [2007] SC912: The appellant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. He and others held up the victim with weapons. As they were running away, they discharged firearms to prevent the public from chasing them. They stole cash and properties valued at K3,096.80. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.  
17.	Stuard Kepu v The State, Unreported Judgment, SCR 21 of 2007, The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery of a shop manager at the shop car park. He and his accomplices parked their vehicles and waited for the shop manager. When he arrived, they pointed a home-made gun at him and threatened to shoot him. In fear of his life, he handed them the money bag. They drove away.  They stole K79, 750.00. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for review and confirmed the sentence of 10 years.
18.	Peter v State [2007] SC894: The appellant sought a review of his sentence of 13 years. He and others armed with home guns, sling shots and bush knives threw a log across the road. When a vehicle stopped. They robbed the occupants of cash in the sum of K2, 200.00 and other personal properties. The sentence was quashed and reduced to 10 years imprisonment.
19.	State v Ngasele [2003] SC731: The Supreme Court was of the view that the sentence of 5 years was too lenient. Had the Public Prosecutor filed a cross appeal, it would have increased the sentence to 10 years imprisonment. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the robbery of a motor vehicle and canteen. The appellant and others armed with weapons woke the canteen owner and robbed him of his property.
20.	These Supreme Court cases demonstrate that at least about 25 years ago, the Supreme Court accepted the sentences of 10 years imprisonment for robbery on a street.
21.	 Other National Court cases involving robbery of a vehicle by person pretending to be genuine passenger or the kidnapping of passengers of a vehicle for the purpose of robbing them show a sentence range between 10- and 13-years imprisonment. These cases are:
22.	State v Yaleba [2022] N10015, Wawun-Kuvi AJ: The offender pleaded guilty. He and his accomplices pretended to cross a pedestrian crossing. When the driver slowed down the offender and his accomplices charged at the vehicle. They were armed with homemade firearms. They forced the driver into the back with his passengers. His accomplices also board the back tray of the vehicle. The victims were driven to a secluded location where they were search and robbed of their personal properties value at K4, 510. They were then driven to a separate location where they were left. The offender and his accomplices drove off with the vehicle. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. 
23.	State v David [2021] N9131, Berrigan J: The offender pleaded guilty. The offender and one other after a night of drinking caught a taxicab. When they stopped the vehicle, the accomplice took out a factor made pistol and held up the driver. The offender stabbed the driver on his arm. They removed the driver from the vehicle. His accomplice drove. After driving for a while they were spotted by the owner of the vehicle who reported them to police. They were apprehended. The offender was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted. 2 years of the sentence was suspended, and the balance was ordered to be served.
24.	State v Dominic [2013] N5407, Toliken AJ: The offenders were convicted following a trial. The victim was driving towards town when the offenders approached him pointing a gun. They broke the wind screen and rear mirror. The victim was struck with an iron pipe. They took the victim money contained in a money bag. He was then dragged out of the truck and beaten. The offenders stole the car keys, spare tyre, spanners, K1400.00 cash, a sling bag containing K34,000.00 in cash, 20 audio music cassettes and two packs (gross) of cigarettes. The victim was discovered by villagers who assisted him. The offenders were later apprehended. They were sentenced to 10 years and 9 years.
25.	State v Ago [2004] N2673, Kandakasi J: The offender pleaded guilty. The victim and one other withdrew K9400 from the Bank. They boarded a vehicle and were driving to their destination when the accused and others pointed at firearms and forced the vehicle to a stop. They stole the K9, 400.00. The occupants of the vehicle were removed, and the offender and his accomplices drove off in the vehicle. They left the vehicle at another location and escaped on foot. The Court found that it was a planned robbery. The offender was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.
26.	What can be said of these cases is that the starting point of robbery on the street is 10 years and depending on the circumstances of each case it is increased.
Antecedent 
27.	The offender is 54 years old and hails from Wabi Village, Kagua Erave, Southern Highlands Province. He is married and has eight children. His parents are deceased. He has two sisters who are married and reside in Port Moresby. Four of his children are attending school and are in Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Southern Highlands. 
28.	He is a member of the Lutheran Church.
29.	The offender is educated up to Grade 3. 
30.	He was employed with Was Construction from 1997 to 1999 and later with Gobe Security from 1999 to 2000.
31.	He sells mobile phones which earns him up to K300 and K500. He uses this income to support his family.
Allocutus
32.	I have heard the offender on allocutus and find that he is not genuinely remorseful. He continues to blame the victim for the offence.
Culpability
33.	The offence was sophisticated and clearly involved planning. While the offender travelled with the victim from Goroka, his accomplices lay in wait at Banz. They were communicating on their phones. After the robbery of the bus, the offender took the victim’s bank card and emptied it. They abandoned the victims in another province in the dark. The vehicle was sold. The offender is not a young man. While he may not be educated, he indicates that he is a Christian and being older and a father, he knows more than a younger person about the seriousness of his conduct. He continues to blame the victim rather than take responsibility for his actions. His culpability is higher than that of a young first-time offender. It is also higher because the victim knew him and trusted him. He played an active role. He directed the others. His culpability is much higher.
Harm 
34.	The offence has left him and his family suffering financially. He had taken out a loan for the bus and has been struggling to repay the loan. He has asked for the offender to be imprisoned.
35.	While not stated, I can accept that the offence itself left the victim feeling traumatized.
Aggravating Factors
36.	 I have considered the submissions by counsel and find the following to be aggravating:
1.	There was no genuine remorse.
2.	Weapons were used.
3.	The offender was armed with a firearm. 
4.	The offender was in company.
5.	He played an active role.
6.	The victims were held up at night.
7.	The victim knew the offender and trusted him.
8.	The bus was sold to someone in Tari and the victim had to travel from Goroka to Tari to recover his bus. 
9.	The victims were taken on board the vehicle and driven to other locations, placing their lives at considerable risk.
10.	The victim and his driver were left at a secluded location in another province where their lives were placed at further risk.
11.	The victim was driven from Banz to Mt Hagen and money was taken from his account until it was depleted.
12.	Robbery is a prevalent offence in Papua New Guinea. It is a very prevalent offence.  
Mitigating Factors
37.	The only mitigating factor is that the offender has no prior convictions. 
Consideration
38.	 The comparable cases indicate a starting point of 10 years imprisonment. Most of the cases were decided 25 years ago. The more recent cases have fewer aggravating features and involve guilty pleas. As stated, robbery is prevalent and instances of robberies have grown. Every day there is some robbery happening across the country even in villagers. Given the facts of this case and all the foregoing considerations, I find that a sentence of 15 years imprisonment is appropriate.
39.	The offender has been in custody since 8 July 2024. He was first apprehended and detained by police in Mendi. He has been in custody for 1 year, 7 months, 3 weeks and 5 days. Pursuant to section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, that period is deducted. The offender shall serve 13 years, 4 months and 2 days.
40.	 The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended. 
41.	I have considered the principles in Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91. Given the offenders age and that he was assaulted by police when apprehended, I am prepared to suspend 3 years, 4 months and 2 days of his sentence. Given the gravity of the offence and that it is prevalent, a wholly suspended sentence is not appropriate. The offender shall serve the balance of 10 years.

Orders

42.	The Orders of the Court are as follows:
1.	The Offender is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
2.	Pursuant to section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 time spent in custody of 1 year, 7 months, 3 weeks and 5 days is deducted and the offender shall serve 13 years, 4 months and 2 days.
3.	Pursuant to s 19 of the Criminal Code, 3 years, 4 months and 2days of his sentence is suspended and he is placed on a good behaviour bond for 12 months.
4.	The offender shall serve the balance of 10 years imprisonment at Bihute Correctional Institution.
5.	The CR file and any bail file are closed.
____________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor