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

State v Awonipa [1999] PGNC 68; N1910 (30 July 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1910

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 99 OF 1999
THE STATE
AGAINST
FOXSY AWONIPA
(ACCUSED/PRISONER)

Goroka

Kirriwom J
30 July 1999

Cases Cited

Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271

The State v Ted Lahui

Counsel

Mrs C. Ashton-Lewis for the State

Mr M. Apie’e for the Accused/Prisoner

30 July 1999

SENTENCE

KIRRIWOM J: Foxsy Awonipa of Kantugu village, Henganofi, Eastern Highlands Province pleaded guilty to stealing with actual violence or robbery, whilst armed with dangerous weapons, namely shot-guns and a bush-knife and whilst in company of other persons from one Rudi Wild Junior and few others. The State alleged that on the 23rd of October 1998 at Goroka the prisoner was one of a four-man gang that set up a road block along the Bihute Road about 7:30 pm and held up the victims driving on that road accompanied by two others.

The gang forced the vehicle to stop and made everyone lie on the back of the vehicle while they took over the wheel. As they drove towards Marison’s bridge they robbed the victims of K80.70 in cash. They travelled back into town at high speed and drove through a Police road block. The driver lost control of the vehicle and hit a tree and rolled over two times. One of the robbers died in the accident, others were injured except for the prisoner who was immediately taken into custody.

Robbery is a crime of violence because there are strong elements of personal risks to the victims of such violence. Where robbery takes place at night time using dangerous weapons such as guns and a vehicle is involved where the victims are entrapped inside the risk to the victims increases when that machine is in the hands or control of someone who has no knowledge about that vehicle and how to handle it safely for the benefit of those in the vehicle. This is why robbery committed in these circumstances carries a maximum term of life imprisonment.

The much quoted case of Gimble v The State [1988- 89] PNGLR 271 sets out some guidelines that can be taken as appropriate to sentencing for aggravated robbery for which the maximum penalty prescribed is life imprisonment such as the case now before me. Although over the years circumstances have changed and the case of Gimble v The State has been branded out of date, it is the range of sentences prescribed for the various categories of robbery that merit criticisms but the principle enunciated therein is still good law. Supreme Court of recent times has expressed clearly in a number of cases that the range of sentences fixed by Gimble be reviewed and adjusted to suit the modern circumstances where the incidences of robbery have escalated to epidemic frequency rather than the reverse.

Gimble sets out the starting point of five years for robbery of a vehicle on the road in a contested case. A lesser sentence, it suggested, should be imposed in an uncontested case. However it goes on to state at p. 274 - 275:

“If certain aggravating factors are present, a sentence of more than five years imprisonment is appropriate. These include if violence is used, if the sum stolen is large or if the robber is in a position of trust towards the victim.”

The other and more serious aggravating factor is where the vehicle occupants are deliberately and recklessly placed in this risky situation as in this case and one needs to look no further than the State v Ted Lahui & Others to appreciate how horrendous the out-come can be where the entrapped vehicle owner loses his/her life in the most gruesome and unforgiving circumstances. It is fortunate for this prisoner and his cohorts that none of the victims in this case suffered serious fatalities.

The prisoner is a young man aged 20, married with no children and after dropping out of Grade 1 in 1986 due to school fee problems, had always resided in his Kantugu village, Henganofi looking after his widowed mother. Of course limited in education employment prospects anywhere is outside his means so he has to make do with what village can offer him. Often in situations like this there are not much options to choose from. You become productive by working on the land to make the ends meet as it has been from time immemorial land will always be to future generations or you become a dreamer and you end up in all sorts of problems. The prisoner said his father had died, he had no money to buy coffee and he got involved in this trouble. Same old excuse.

In mitigation it was submitted that I must take into account the following factors in favour of the prisoner:

1. ـ H6 pleaded guilty

2. ـ҈ H60; He is a is a first Offender

3. ټ&#V60; msctims were were not ha/p>

This is a very serious case of armed robbery. It is not a case of this prisoner and his accomplices holding the victims and stealing from them some monies amounting to K80.70. Its is far worse than that. This is a case of stealing a motor vehicle (although in law this is a separable offence both in the Code and under the Summary Offences Act) and furthermore crashing that vehicle. The vehicle owner therefore not only sustained personal injuries but also suffered huge financial loss as the result. And this is a further aggravating factor that this Court must bear in mind. Sentence in this case must therefore be sufficiently firm to show the community’s condemnation these attacks apart from both personal and general deterrence.

Armed robbery along road is becoming prevalent. Not long ago I sentenced two young men who held up a motor vehicle near the Bena bridge which resulted in one village being raided by another village in search for the robbers. That raid successfully turned out the culprits who got their due desserts from this court following their convictions.

Emergence of vigilante groups amongst concerned people of the general law abiding people clearly demonstrates just how much innocent people are getting sick and tired and fed up of today’s youngsters turning to crime and bringing evil and pain upon others who are quietly living their own lives and minding their own business.

In all the circumstances of the case before me and taking into account those factors both for and against the prisoner, I sentence him to eight years imprisonment in hard labour. I deduct pre-trial custody period of ten and half months (custody since 23/10/98) and he will now serve the balance of seven years, one month and two weeks in hard labour.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused/Prisoner: Public Solicitor