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

State v Maip [1987] PGNC 17; N654 (22 December 1987)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N654

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
-V-
DAVID MAIP

Mount Hagen

King AJ
22 December 1987

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

KING AJ: At sittings I have heard iard in full a charge of armed robbery brought against you and found you guilty. Also at this sittings I began hearing a charge of attempted murder against you but midwaough the trial you changed nged your plea to guilty and saved at least some hours of hearing time. It is now my task to pass sentence on you in respect of both these offences, which were committed about a year apart, having today heard character evidence called on your behalf and your own comments on allocutus together with the submissions of your Counsel.

You are a young man aged about 20 years, educated to Grade 8 at Mt. Hagen High School and married with one child. It is common ground that for some time, at least from 1983 to 1986, you were known to the police as a local criminal believed to be involved in gang activities. The two offences with which I am now concerned certainly confirm that belief. The first was a gang hold-up of a coffee buying team. The second was a gang attempt on the life of a police sergeant, though I must say not a very efficient or determined one, since four armed men did not even manage to injure him significantly.

Against the background of your past conduct and the seriousness of these two offences is to be placed the character evidence, your own remarks and the submissions. A short summary is appropriate. The first witness was Chief Superintendent Geoffrey Kera, O.I.C. of Police in this Province. He has known you since 1983 when you were engaged in gang activities but had almost rehabilitated yourself under his influence. However he was suddenly transferred and the process of rehabilitation was not completed. On his return to the area he again had contact with you and found you responsive to suggestions that you reform. In fact you co-operated with him and arranged the surrender of some gang weapons. Since you have been in custody the Chief Superintendent has had a little to do with you and feels you are a changed man. He thinks you could do good work in the community and he supported a light sentence as appropriate.

Frank Hoermansteder, a social worker with the Prisoner’s Self Help Task Force, a body largely composed of ex-criminals and ex-prisoners working to reform active offenders, the work of which is recognized by the Government (which has made considerable financial grants to it) and the police, was the next witness. He has known you since you have been in custody. He says you are a good natural leader, a reformed man who once escaped from custody because of particular difficulties with one warder who was generally unpopular, but that you quickly surrendered, and he supports the views expressed by the Chief Superintendent.

Finally Brother Doug Tenent, a Roman Catholic Church social worker, gave evidence as to his five month contract with you whilst in custody at Baisu since he has been in the area having responsibilities towards remandees. He too said you were a natural leader, had been of great assistance to him in dealing with other prisoners, were not selfish, and had taken a psychiatrically disturbed prisoner under your wing to ensure he came to no harm. I have had considerable personal contact with this witness and know that he would not lightly express any opinion and feels that some offenders undoubtedly deserve significant punishment. He, however, also supported the view as to sentence of the other witnesses and the view that you would do more good if quickly returned to the community than if kept in custody.

I think I should add here that I went to the remand centre at Baisu a couple of weeks ago and that I there saw for myself that you were a spokesman for the remandees and that your questions and comments were directed not to your own personal position but showed a concern for your fellow remandees generally. This supports some of what has been said about you.

Your Counsel referred me to a decision on sentence of the learned Chief Justice in a recent case in Mt. Hagen of Frank Kage, about whom evidence was led. That person was convicted of two offences of robbery and arson. Very similar character evidence was led about him, and the sentence imposed was a non-custodial one. I am told it was a five year good behaviour bond.

I regard your conviction of offences of robbery and attempted murder as more serious than those of Frank Kage, even though I have no doubt that you were not a major participant. In the robbery you were a by-stander or driver of one of the vehicles. In the attempted murder the evidence I heard indicated that you would be likely to be convicted but only as an accessory. In the circumstances I do not think I can impose an entirely non-custodial sentence but I propose to act on the evidence that has been given and extend great leniency. I do not think I can ignore the evidence of such responsible persons who would not have given it insincerely and who have in affect put their reputations on the line in giving the evidence.

However because I am going to be very lenient I think I should expose my approach in full for all to see, including the Supreme Court if necessary.

On conviction after trial for an offence of armed robbery I would ordinarily regard 5 years as the very minimum sentence. After trial in the case of attempted murder I would regard about 4 years as the minimum sentence, and after plea of guilty, as in your case, about two and a half years to 3 years. That would produce a total of about seven and a half to 8 years, but of course it is not appropriate simply to total the sentences. It is necessary to arrive at a proper global sentence and in normal circumstances, but for the evidence before me, I think a minimum global sentence would be of the order of 6 years imprisonment.

However, having regard all that has been said on your behalf I sentence you to 3 years and 10 months imprisonment in hard labour. You have spent one year and 4 months in custody and I take that into account, leaving an effective period of 2 years and 6 months for you to serve. Of that period I suspend two years upon your entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for 5 years.

Lawyer for State: Mr. S. Norum

Lawyer for Accused: Miss R. Sage