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

State v Tairo [1998] PGNC 74; N1830 (24 July 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1830

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 830 OF 1998
THE STATE
-V-
TUI KILA TAIRO

Goroka

Sawong J
24 July 1998

Counsel

C. Ashton-Lewis, for the State

M. Apie’e, for the Accused

24 July 1998

SAWONG J: This morning you pleaded guilty to a charge of escaping from lawful custody on 8 October 1997 from the Bundaira Jail where you were serving a term of four years for armed robbery. The oe of ing from lawful wful custody is created by s. 139 of t of the Criminal Code.

The facts of your case is short. You w prisserving a jail tail term at the Bundaira Jail for armed robbery. The evidence shce shows that on the morning of 8 October you and several other prisoners and detainees, cut through the iron bar on the door of youf your cell, forced the main door open, thnt through the inner wire fence, and then through the outerouter main wire fence and escaped.

YOUR PERSONAL BACKGROUND.

There is nothing much in your Antecedent report but I take note of its contents. I no or very little ttle information about your personal background so I do not take this point any further.

When I gave you an opportunity to speake, yo me to make the sentence concurrent with the sent sentence you are presently serving .&#160 Youyer has made a similar ilar submission.

I have considered the submissions. Apart from tht that you plou pleaded guilty, there are really no other mting factors to be taken into your favour.

There arre are several factors which are against you and which I must as a judge tnto account. The firs first is you have have several prior criminal records which I must take note of. The particulars of thesviorevious records, which have not been disputed are:

· nj y Jul6,r99t Cocrt cort convicted you and sentenced you to 18 months IHL for having in possession a dang dangerous drugs, namely marijuana

;ټ&##160;;ټ&#4 July 1996, t96, the Dihe Districstrict Cout Court alrt also coso convicted you and sentenced you tonths IHL for escapincaping from lawful custody.

· & < 4 August 1996, istrict Cout Court convicted and sced you to 2 months imprisonment for having in possesossession pol160; un0; uniform.

· ټ&#26 Fey 1997, National CourtCourt conv convictedicted and sentenced you to 4 years IHL for armed robbery.

The other factor is that, you together with ther prrs anainee escahat night had delibdeliberateerately sely set outt out to e to escape. The facts of your case shaw that this was well planned and executed escape. This was nopur of a momentoment incident.

After you escaped, you were at large until you were rured by police and warders. In theseumstances, wes, whs, what then is the appropriate sentence.

The first thing to note is that, under s. 139 (1) of the Code, the sentence is “a term of imprisonment not less than five years”. This is a minientence offe offence, that is that, the minimum starting point is five years imprisonment, nothing less. However there is reme dect decision which in effect says that in an appropriate case, this court may suspenuspend part or whole of the sentence.

The next issue is whether your sentence should be made cumulative or concu to the sentence ynce you arving. The National Court has a discretion as to whether a sentence should be concurrncurrent or cumulative. However, thacretion mu exee exercised in accordance with well known prin principles. ally speaking these princirinciples are that where two or mffences are committed in the course of a single transaction, all sentences in respect of thof the offences should be made concurrent.

Secondly, where the offe offences are so differently in character or in relation to different victims, cumulative sentences would be appropriate.

Finally, the totality principles. Whis means is that when then the sentencer has arrived at the appropriate sentences and decided whether they should be concurrent or cumulative he must then look at the total sentence and if itust and appropriaopriaopriate. is not, he must vary one one or more of the sentences to get a just sentence.

Applthese principles to this case, several factors are obvious. The firsthat you havu have have not been charged with and convicted of series of offences. You have beerged and conviconvicted with only one offence, that of escaping from lawful custody.