N3530

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 962 & 963 OF 2008

THE STATE

V.

MANUEL HARRY MAUTA
&
MICHAEL SANI

Waigani: Paliau, AJ
2008: 19th & 26th November

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Armed Robbery – Charge of – 
Guilty Plea – Criminal Code s. 386(1)(2)(a)(b). 

Cases cited:
Gimble v. The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271 
The State v. Edward Taule & Ors (2000) N2299
Tau Jim Anis v. The State (2000) SC642

Counsels:
Mr. D. Kuvi & Mr. C. Sambua, for the State
Ms. G. Peu & Mr. J. Mesam, for the Accused

26 November, 2008

1.	PALIAU, AJ.:	The two accused pleaded guilty to a charge of Armed Robbery. This is contrary to Section 386 (1) & (2)(a)(b) of the Criminal Code.

2.	On the 26th January 2008, at 3 am, the two accused paddled from Kaparoko village, Rigo, Central Province to a yacht which was anchored off the coast. They were in search of food. Whilst the boat owner Mr. Roy Griffith was asleep in the cabin, his crewman slept outside. Mr. Griffith was awoken by the noise caused by the crewman and the two accused. He stepped out of the cabin and ordered both accused to leave. The two accused persons climbed aboard and stole properties worth K 2, 000.00. The properties belonged to Mr. Griffith. The properties were however returned back to Mr. Griffith. 

3.	The accused were in company with each other and were in possession of offensive weapons which are bush knives. No injury was caused to the victim. 

4.	What is the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the two accused persons?

5.	The offence of armed robbery is provided for under Section 386 of the Criminal Code as follows:

"386.		The offence of robbery

(1)	A person who commits robbery is guilty of a crime.

Penalty:	Subject to Subsection (2) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. 

(2)	If a person charged with an offence against subsection (1) –

(a)	is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or 
(b)	is in company with one or more other persons; or
(c)	at, immediately before or immediately after, the time of the robbery, wounds or uses any other personal violence to any person,

he is liable subject to Section 19, to imprisonment for life. 

Antecedent Report

6.	The two accused persons have no prior convictions.

Allocutus

7.	Manuel Harry Mauta – Said sorry to the Court and the victim. I am a first time offender. I did not mean to do it. 

8.	Michael Sani – Said sorry to the country, my family, the Court and the victim. I am a first time offender. I plea for the Court to be lenient to me. 

Submissions by Defence

9.	Ms. Peu submitted that the offence of armed robbery is a serious one and imposes a penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty must be reserved for the worst kind of cases. 

10.	She further submitted that the mitigating factors that should be taken into account in favour of the accused persons are:

-	They are both young and in their 20’s. Manuel Harry Mauta is 20 years old and Michael Sani is 26 years old. 
-	They pleaded guilty and their early admissions in their record of interviews had saved the court’s time and expenses in running a trial. 
-	Expressed remorse and apologized to the victim. 
-	They co-operated with the Police.
-	They are first time offenders with no prior convictions. 
-	All stolen goods were returned to the victim. 
-	No physical violence and injury caused to the victim. 

11.	Ms. Peu submitted also that the time of 10 months in custody should be sufficient punishment. She cited various cases to show the range of punishment imposed. She cited also the case of Gimble v. The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271 and submitted that the present case falls into category (3) or (c). An imprisonment term of 6 to 8 years is appropriate and they be wholly suspended and put on probation, considering that the mitigating factors outweighs the aggravating factors. 

12.	Ms. Peu tendered as evidence which the State did not object to, a letter from the complainant/victim which requested the withdrawal of the charges because the time spent in custody shall have taught them a valuable lesson. This letter should also be considered as a mitigating factor in favour of the accused persons. 

Submissions by the State

13.	Mr. Kuvi for the State submitted that because the penalty is life imprisonment this is a serious case and falls within category 1 or (a) of Gimble v. The State case (supra) 

14.	He also cited the case of The State v. Edward Taule & Ors (2000) N2299 and Tau Tim Anis v. The State (2000) SC 642 and recommended an appropriate custodial sentence of between 5 to 6 years imprisonment to be imposed on both the accused. 

15.	I have considered the mitigating factors in favour of the prisoners as submitted by their counsel and the cases cited by both counsels and I impose a term of imprisonment of 6 years each. From the head sentence of 6 years, a period of 10 months is deducted being for pre-sentence period awaiting trial. This leaves a period of 5 years 2 months to be served. Four (4) years of the remaining terms will be suspended on the condition that the prisoners immediately serve one (1) year two (2) months calculated from today. Upon release from prison after serving 1 year 2 months, the prisoners shall enter into their own recognizance to keep peace and be of good behaviour for two (2) years. 

Ordered accordingly. 

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State 
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused