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

State v Pinia Junior [1999] PGNC 23; N1850 (22 April 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1850

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 115 OF 1999
THE STATE
-V-
MICHAEL PINIA JUNIOR

Lae

Sakora J
13 March 1999
22 April 1999

Counsel

Mr M. Peter for the State

Mr C. Inkisopo for the Defence

SENTENCE

22 April 1999

SAKORA J: You pleaded guilty to a charge containing one count of robbery, contrary to s 386 (2) of the Criminal Code Act.

The agreed brief facts for your plea demonstrate the following circumstances. On 8 October 1998 between 10 and 10:30 am; you met up with another person just outside Bugandi High School, here in Lae. This other person, who is still at large, asked you to go with him into the school grounds and rob the school canteen.

You and this other person then walked into the school grounds and proceeded to the canteen. Your accomplice was armed with a home-made gun. At the canteen you held up the canteen-keeper, a man by the name of Lingau Poilou, threatening him with the gun. You yourself then jumped over and into the canteen and took cash in the amount of K30.

The victim was hit on the face with the butt of the gun, causing injury and he bled. The two of you then escaped from the school grounds, with some of the students giving chase. The other person, your accomplice managed to escape from the students, but you were caught and later handed over to the police. The home-made gun was recovered by the police.

On the very serious question of punishment for your offence, I have had the opportunity of hearing both yourself and your lawyer, as well the lawyer for the State. In your brief statement to the Court, you said you were sorry for what you had done and sought the mercy of this Court to be placed on probation.

Your lawyer made detailed submission on your behalf, urging certain matters or factors for the Court's consideration in your favour. You are about 18 years old, single, and originally from the East New Britain province. Both parents are alive, and your father works in Lae with Ela Motors. There are 11 children in the family with 3 brothers and 7 sisters. The family lives at Bumbu Road, opposite the Golf Course.

The family belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. Formal education for you was only up to Grade 7 at the Huonville Community School, completing it in 1997. Since then you have had no formal employment, but it appears you assist your father on a casual basis at your father's work. And this is your first offence.

What you and your friend did was a silly stupid thing to do. And it is something law-abiding people all over Papua New Guinea (PNG) are becoming all-too-familiar with these days. Honest hard-working people are being constantly harassed and victimised by people such as yourself.

The rights and freedoms of these people are constantly being trampled upon by the criminal elements in our communities. Their personal private, official and business activities are constantly being interfered with and adversely affected. There is, naturally, an increasing frustration of the prevalence of this type of offences. And the Courts must, necessarily, pay proper heed to these concerns and frustrations of the law-abiding honest people.

For ordinary law-abiding people, it is not such a welcome or pleasant experience to be confronted by criminals armed with dangerous weapons and intent upon causing violence. It always is a traumatic experience. People are put into immediate fear and apprehension of their personal safety and lives as well as those of their loved ones. In this instance, as well as threatening the victim with the gun, violence was in fact offered to him by inflicting injury to his face by the butt of the gun. You were not content with just robbing him. And it was not as if he was resisting or offering you violence himself.

Robbery is always serious; it is stealing with violence. Dangerous weapon was involved; violence was threatened and actually offered or inflicted. The injury inflicted and suffered was not superficial; the victim required medical attention and treatment. As against these aggravating features, I find no redeeming circumstances except those that I have noted already.

In the end result, it is the judgment of this Court that you be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of 24 months (2 years) IHL. From this term is deducted the period of 2 months you spent in custody before being granted bail, leaving the balance of 22 months. In the further exercise of my sentencing discretion, I suspend this period of 22 months on the condition that you be placed on Good Behaviour Bond for a period of 24 months.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Defence: Public Solicitor