Unreported National Court Decisions
N1836
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
CR 152 & 153 OF 1999
THE STATE
-V-
PAUL WAGIRA & ALPHONSE MAUSE
Wewak
Sawong J
4 March 1999
5 March 1999
Counsel
M. Ruarri for the State.
P. Tusais for the Accused.
5 March 1999.
SAWONG J: Yesterday, both of you pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery, an offence contrary S. 386 (2) of the Code.
FACTS
The facts of your case is fairly short, is not complicated. The evidence shows that during the course of the day on 20 November 1998, both of you met and planned to rob this tradestore. This robbery was therefore a planned one. 
And so after you had planned, and at around 6 pm in the evening both of you went towards their intended destination, that is the tradestore at Butika village. You, Alphonse was carrying your homemade gun. When you arrived at your destination, Paul Wagira stood as a watchman on the road whilst you Alphonse went to the said tradestore. The tradestore was owned by Numbulim Business Group. At the time when you went there the store was closed and the shop keeper a girl by the name of Jill Mathias was in her house next to the shop. As you approached she came out of her house and you told her you wanted to buy a packet of biscuit and tin of meat. You also gave K3.00 for these goods. She took the money, opened the shop and went in and as she was collecting your change, you held her up using the firearm. You threatened her and demanded the store’s takings.
Jill Mathias out of her fear for her own life, gave you the days takings of some K300.00, but you were not satisfied with that and you demanded some more; whereupon she gave you a battery box containing K2,000-00 which was the previous days takings. After stealing these monies you ran away, but the girl called to the nearby villagers, who gave chase. 
As a result of being chased you threw the box containing the cash into the bush and you escaped.
PAUL WAGIRA - Paul Wagira is aged 19 years old. He is the only child in his family. He completed grade 8 in 1997 at the local top up school where he comes from. After that he was living in the village up to the time he committed this crime. You are a first offender.
ALPHONSE MAUSE - is also aged 19. He is a married man with a 6 months old child. Up until the date of commission of the offence he was living with his wife and child at Butika village. He is the eldest of 3 children. He is educated up to grade 4. He did’nt further his education and he was not gainfully employed in any formal section.
When I gave you an opportunity to tell the Court as to why the Court should not pass sentence on you, each of you made some statements.
You, Paul Wagira, said that you were sorry for what you did. You acknowledged and admitted that what you did was wrong and that you had broken the law. You told me of your family, that you are the only child. 
You also told the Court that your father had died and that although your mother is alive, she is old. You told the Court that you have a patch of cocoa, coconut, coffee and vanilla. 
You asked the Court to be lenient on you and suspend all of any sentence the Court imposes upon you and place you on a G.B.H. or on a Probation.
Alphonse Mause, you too said sorry for what you did. In particular you said sorry and apologised to the victims of your crime. You also told the Court that this was your first and last time to appear before a Court and that you would not do it again in the future. You too told the Court that you have a patch of cocoa and coffee and a chicken farm. You asked the Court for leniency and asked the Court to impose a short sharp custodial sentence. Alternatively you asked the Court to suspend the whole of any sentence and put you on a Good Behaviour Bond or on a probation.
Your lawyer has submitted that the Court should take into your favour the following mitigating factor. 
First that each of you has pleaded guilty. In that regard I note that when you were apprehended each of you co-operated with the police and made admissions. Your pleas of guilty are therefore consistent with your admission to the police. I accept this indicates that your pleas were genuine.
Secondly, both of you are first offenders. Both of you are unsophisticated villagers and I don't consider you to be a dangerous criminal. However, despite being first offenders, the offence they committed is a serious, violent and prevalent crime. And it is being committed by young persons in your age groups. Consequently your youthfulness is of not much weight.
Thirdly, you have said sorry to the victims of the robbery. I do not know whether they will accept because there is no way of knowing what their reaction would be to your apology.
Their lawyer submitted that this was not a worst type of a robbery case of a store, although he conceded that the crime is serious and prevalent crime involving the use or threats of use of violence.
There are two other matters which I wish to say a few words on. The first is that both of you on allocatus, told the Court that you have cocoa, coconut, coffee patches to think about. You are concerned about that. I can understand your concern about those properties, and so you should be. But what I don’t understand is that on the one hand you have these crops from which you can work and earn some income and on the other hand you planned and committed armed robbery and steal money from someone’s store. Your actions deprived some one of their hard earned cash.
The other matter, which I had touched on briefly earlier is that, both of you planned this robbery. This was by no means a spur of a moment robbery, far from it, because both of you say in statements to the police that you planned to commit this robbery. This in my view makes it much more serious.
The crime of armed robbery is a serious and prevalent crime. It is more and more being committed by people in your age group, who are acting in groups of two or more. It is also crime of violence, because it involves either use of actual violence on threats to use violence.
As I have said, State v Jonathan Wellington, CR 11/12 of 1999, the range of tarriffs in Gimble v The State are in my view outdated and inappropriate to the changing and prevailing circumstances of this country. I have said that in my view those suggested tarriffs are no longer useful, because the crime of armed robbery in its many varying forms and categories have become so prevalent in our society that those tarriffs no longer have any relevance.
The judges of both the National Court and the Supreme have been giving warnings many many times to offenders and would be offenders that the time will come when they will no longer impose sentences in the range suggested in Gimble’s case. Despite these repeated warning over many years, it seems that offenders and would be offenders continue to ignore those warnings of increased sentences. This is unfortunate but those are realities.
Consequently and as I have indicated in my recent decision I am going to depart from the suggested range in Gimble and impose sentence which are going to be higher. This is to act as deterrent to you and to those people who are thinking of committing any violent crimes in the future.
In the circumstances of your case, your plea for leniency and for wholly suspended sentences are quite inappropriate. In all the circumstances, I consider that in a case like this, where two or more first time youthful young offenders, acting together and using dangerous weapons without any aggravating factors, holdup a store and the like, and who pleaded guilty, the sentence should be between 8 years and 10 years. Of cause if there are any aggravating factors, for instance if the victim is assaulted, a gun is fired but misses its victim, or if the offender has a prior conviction for any offences, then the sentence should be more than 10 years.
And so in the circumstances of your case, I am firmly of the view that you must be sent to jail to punish and deter you and to deter others who might have a like mind.
Each of you is sentenced 8 years IHL. But I deduct 3 months and 1 week, being pre trial custody period, and you are to serve 7 years 8 months and 3 weeks IHL. 
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor