N7491

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO.1664 OF 2016

THE STATE

-V-

ISAAC BANABAS

Lae:  Pitpit, J
2016: 21st & 30th November

CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence- armed robbery-Criminal Code Act, section 386(1)(2)(a) and (b)-Stole from a shop, armed with two homemade pistols and in company with two other persons, stole cash and goods to the value of K4,005.50.

CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence-Pleaded guilty-First time offender-expression of remorse –written to the victim expressing remorse and seeks reconciliation.

Cases cited:

Gimble-v-The State[1988-89] PNGLR 271
Public Prosecutor-v-Don Hale SCRA No.33 of 1996
Tau Jim Anis & Ors-v-The State [2000] PGNC 12, SC642

Counsel:

Mr E. Thomas, for the State
Mr J.Huekwahin, for the Accused.

30th November, 2016

1.	PITPIT, J: In this case the State had alleged that on Sunday 11th May 2014, between 10 and 11:00 am in the morning the Accused now before the Court was with one Luke Bawai and Roger Gawi Kiandu at the GLG Trading along Josey Street here at Lae, Morobe Province.

2.	It is alleged the accused and his two friends were at that time armed with two home-made pistols when they entered the said GLG Trading shop. As they entered the shop, the accused is said to have shouted hold up (hold up) to the 
GLG Manager and his staff. It is said the accused and his friends then pointed the home-made guns at the staff and Manager and ordered them to lie down on the floor.

3.	Fearing their safety the Manager and his staff laid on the floor and the accused and his friends then stole K3,000.00 in cash, 25 loose Cambridge cigarette packets, 3 inner Cambridge packs all to the value of K4,005.50 and fled on foot to the Papuan Compound.

4.	The accuse was charged and had pleaded guilty to one count of robbery under section 386(1),(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

5.	Section 386 of the Criminal Code states:

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

Penalty: subject to section (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;
(b)	is in company with one or more other persons

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

6.	This law however has change under Amendment No.6 of 2013 passed on the 18th day of September 2013.

7.	After you had pleaded guilty, the Court had read the District Court Committal Depositions and confirmed your plea of guilt and convicted you of the charge.

8.	The Court now has to decide what punishment is to be imposed upon you for being involved in these offences.

9.	In doing so, the Defence had reminded this Court that maximum penalty of death is to be reserved for the worst or the most serious kind of this offence.

10.	To decide whether your case is a case that maybe regarded as the most serious or worst of its kind encountered in practice, one has to examine the circumstances of this case.

11.	There was a case where the accused and his friends merely walks into the shop, pulled out a couple of home-made guns threats the Manager and staff without firing a single shot took K3,000 cash and some item to the total of K4005.50.

12.	There was not physical force, violence that was used. The accused and his friends simply walk out and left.

13.	The Accused had pleaded guilty and saved the Court’s time and unnecessary expenses.

14.	The accused had expressed remorse and in fact went out of his way to write a letter to the victim shop and expressed their remorse empathy to the victims.

15.	Also his willingness to restitute the property that was alleged to have been stolen.

16.	The accused is a first time offender and has asked for leniency in the form of good behaviour bond or a suspended sentence.

17.	Against the prisoner however is the fact that;

(1)	This offence is now regarded as a very serious offence.
(2)	Those dangerous weapons were used.
(3)	The offence is prevalent and calls for heavier punishment to be imposed.

18.	I have consider a number of case authorities on this issue. I have in the guideline laid down in the case of Gimble-v-The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271. It set out this sort of class of robbery falls under the 3rd category. That is to be robbery of a shop at a starting point of 5 years. In the subsequent Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Don Hale-v-The State and the Public Prosecutor-v-Tau Jim Anis and others, the Supreme Court recognised that the tariffs in Gimble has become now effective and that the sentencing authority may if it is of the opinion that a higher sentence is warranted it may do so but in progression than in leaps and banned.

19.	Having considered the circumstances of the case and public opinion on the prevalence and frequency of these offences I have decide that this case would warrant an increase from the tariff laid down in Gimble’s case.

20.	I have consider the information submitted through the PSR report and noted that you are married and have 3 children. That your wife is unemployed and that you manage to survive by lend to people the little money you have.

21.	Have noted all that have been submitted on your behalf, I have decided to sentence you to 6 years imprisonment.

22.	I will deduct the period you spent in custody.

23.	Further, I will suspend the balance on the following conditions:

1.	That you will undergo a probation monitor program for 24 months to be jointly supervised and conducted by Mr Soke John of the Papuan Compound and the Probation Office.

2.	For the duration of your suspended sentence, you will not be seen or associate with your accomplices namely Luke Bawai or Roger Gawi Kiandu; or

3.	That for the 24 months you will be under probationary supervision you will not consume alcohol or drug.

4.	That you would be of good behaviour for the duration of your suspended sentence.

________________________________________________________________
The Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
The Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Defendant