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

  Download original PDF

State v Jorge [2026] PGNC 11; N11706 (20 February 2026)

N11706

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 480, 481, 482 & 483 OF 2025

THE STATE

V

JERRY AMBO JORGE, TERRA KUNAKUN, EZEKIEL TONY CHICKEN & BAL TEO

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
18 AUGUST,16 & 17 OCTOBER 2025; 20 FEBRUARY 2026

CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Criminal Code, s 386(1)(2)(a)(b), Armed Robbery-Robbery of a Home-Group of men-Use of weapons-Some property recovered-Sentence of 12 years and 10 years respectively.

Cases cited

Taha v The State (2025) SC2759
Sibona v The State (2024) SC2675
Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759
Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642
Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564
Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
State v Tuku (No 2) [2024] N10847
State v Lance Kairo (2014) Unnumbered decision delivered on 20 March 2014
State v James [2009] N3752
State v Sembengo [2006] N3030
State v Moi (2006) Unnumbered decision delivered on 22 May 2006
State v Negol [2005] N2801
State v Nabate [2002] N2216

Counsel

L Maru & S Joseph, for the State
V Move, for the offenders

SENTENCE

1. WAWUN-KUVI J: The offenders have pleaded guilty to the charge of Robbery under s 386 (1)(2)(a)(b) of the Criminal Code.
   
2. It was alleged and accepted that between 3.30 am and 4.30 am, the offenders broke into the home of Brown Sinamoi along Bihute Road. The noise woke the occupants, who went to enquire. They were met by the offenders, who were armed with firearms. The offenders directed them to be quiet, and they complied. They then ransacked the house, stealing cash in the amount of K50,700.00 and other electronic appliances totalling K146,080.00. They then ran off with the stolen properties.
   
3. I must now decide the appropriate penalty for each of them.
   

Penalty

4. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The penalty is subject to section 19 of the Code.
   
5. I remind myself that the maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious case: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.
   

Sentencing guidelines

6. In considering sentencing guidelines, I remind myself that they do not bind the exercise of my discretion and that each case must be decided on its peculiar set of facts: Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487.
   
7. The facts of this case demonstrate that it is the robbery of a house.
   
8. In Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271, this category of robbery would attract a sentence with a starting point of seven years. However, that starting point was increased by three years in Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564 and later Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642.
   
9. The starting point of robbery of a house, based on these Supreme Court cases, would be 10 years. However, I note the statement of the Supreme Court in Taha v The State (2025) SC 2759, which states that the sentences in Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271, Tau Jim Anis and Others v The State (2002) SC564 and Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759 may be regarded as outdated, given the prevalence of aggravated robbery.

Comparable cases

10. Counsel for the State submits for a sentence between the range of 8 and 10 years imprisonment. She submitted the following comparable cases:
    
11. Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC 642: The offenders appealed against the gravity of their sentence of 10 years imprisonment. The Supreme Court reduced their sentences to 6 and 7 years because they were young first-time offenders who cooperated with the police.
    
12. Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271: The offender was 29 years old and a first-time offender. He was with a group of men who were armed and robbed a club. The manager was knocked unconscious by the robbers. A sentence of 9 years was substituted with a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment.
    
13. State v Tuku (No 2) [2024] N10847, Miviri J: The offender was convicted after a trial. He was with others who were armed and broke into a dwelling house. They stole property valued at K5726.50. During the robbery, two of the homeowners' in-laws were assaulted. He was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment.
    
14. State v James [2009] N3752, David J: The offender was with others who used a knife and firearm to hold up a homeowner in his house. He was robbed of his mobile phone and K90 in cash. He was not harmed. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.
    
15. State v Moi (2006) Unnumbered decision delivered on 22 May 2006, Jalina J: The offender pleaded guilty. He was with other youthful offenders who broke into a dwelling house and held up the occupants at gunpoint. A cassette player valued at K400 was stolen. A sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was imposed.
    
16. State v Nabate [2002] N2216, Jalina J: The offender pleaded guilty to robbery of a dwelling house in which they stole K538 in cash and property. The homeowner woke up to the sound of his dog barking and went to investigate. He was met by the offenders who held him up.
17. Other than the case of State v Tuku (No 2) (supra), the comparable cases submitted by the State are outdated.
    
18. Counsel for the offenders submits for a sentence of 5 years for Terra Kunakun, Ezekiel Tony Chicken and Bal Teo and a sentence of 4 years for Jerry Ambo Jorge. It appears from submissions that the reduction of sentence is based on the claim that Jerry Ambo Jorge was shot by police and assaulted by one of the complainants.
    
19. In addition to the cases of Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642 and State v Moi (2006) (supra), counsel for the offenders submitted the following comparable cases:
    
20. State v Sembengo [2006] N3030, Cannings J: The offenders were armed and broke into a dwelling home where they robbed the occupants and raped a female occupant. They were each sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for the conviction of robbery.
    
21. State v Negol [2005] N2801, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty. He was with others who entered the home of a manager who had with him the company takings. They stole K5000 of his employer’s money and K300 from his wallet. The manager and his family were not harmed. He was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.
    
22. The cases submitted by counsel for the offenders do not correspond to the submitted range of 4 to 5 years and instead indicate a range between 7 and 12 years for robbery of a home. While the cases are outdated they demonstrate that the Court has imposed sentences above the 10-year starting point for robbery of homes with aggravation.
    
23. More recent comparable cases involving robbery of a home are:
    
24. Sibona v The State (2024) SC2675, the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence of 11 years for robbery of a home. The offender had entered a home under the pretext of fixing locks. He had worn a company uniform which had convinced the security guards to allow him to enter the home. He had raped the female occupant, tied her up and stole her property valued at K8, 400.00. He was sentenced to a cumulative sentence of 34 years which included the robbery conviction.
    
25. State v Lance Kairo (2014) Unnumbered decision delivered on 20 March 2014, Murray J: The offender and one other planned to rob gamblers. On arrival there was no one present and so they diverted their attention to a dwelling house. They held up the occupants at gunpoint and stole cash and property valued at K325.00. Both offenders were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
    
26. The trend in the more recent cases indicates that for young youthful offenders the Courts sentence between the range of 11 and 12 years.
    

Personal Antecedents

Jerry Ambo Jorge

27. He is 30 years old and hails from Kilaton, Ijivitari District in Northern Province. He is a member of the Anglican Church. He is married with two children aged 10 and 3. His parents are alive and reside in the village. He has three sisters who are in primary school.
    
28. He was educated up to Grade 10 when he left his studies.
    
29. He had no formal employment prior to his imprisonment. He and his wife sold store items and were wholly supported by his wife’s parents.

Terra Kunakun

30. He is 26 years old and hails from Yangoru Sausia, East Sepik Province. He is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. He is single. His parents reside at Timber College in Lae Morobe Province where his father is employed as a salesman. His mother is from East Sepik, and his mother is from Madang Province.
    
31. The offender was in Grade 10 when he committed the offence.
    
32. He has no formal employment and was accommodated by a friend. His father would occasionally send him money.
    

Ezekiel Tony Chicken

33. He is 20 years old and hails from Megavo Village, Ungai Bena, Eastern Highlands Province. He is single and resided at Ato Market prior to his imprisonment. He is a member of the Baptist Church. His parents are resident in Lae, Morobe Province. His father is from Eastern Highlands, and his mother is from Salamao, Morobe Province.
    
34. He left school in Grade 9 and was wholly supported by his father.

Bal Teo

35. He is 25 years old and hails from Dumun in Simbu Province. He is single and resides at Kama Road, Goroka. He is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. He has been living with his parents since he was 4 years old. His parents are separated. He left education at Grade 8. He was employed by the victim from 2019 to 2023.
    

Allocutus

36. In allocutus each offender gave a statement which I accept demonstrated genuine remorse.
    

Culpability

37. The facts that the offenders pleaded guilty demonstrates that the offence was premeditated or planned. They went armed and into a group. Bal Teo was not present and was not involved in the planning; he only provided the information needed to give effect to the plan and was paid with the proceeds of the robbery. His culpability is reduced in that regard.
    
38. I find that the culpability of the other offenders is higher than Bal Teo’s.

Harm

39. The owner of the house whose money was stolen is now deceased. His wife and daughter gave their Victim Impact Statements. They described the ordeal that they endured during the robbery. They were assaulted and tied up. They were threatened with sexual assault. They now live in fear and suffer continued trauma. They now face financial strain from hiring private security. Their family lost a significant amount of money and more when they had to fund the investigation.
    
40. They ask the Court to impose a strong punitive sentence.
    

Factors in Aggravation

41. The offenders except for Bal Teo were armed and were in company of each other. They threatened violence. It was the robbery of a home where the victims had a expectation of safety. They were robbed in the early hours of the morning when no one could come to their aid. A significant amount of cash was taken and not recovered. Also in aggravation in the prevalence of the offence and that the offence occurred in the early hours of the morning when the homeowners were most vulnerable.
    
42. While the victims have said that they were restrained, assaulted and threatened with sexual violence, these were facts that the offenders did not plead guilty to. Considering the authority in Saperus Yalikabut v The State [2006] SC890, I do not consider these factors and give benefit to the offenders.
    

Factors in Mitigation

43. The offenders pleaded guilty and cooperated with the police. They are all first-time offenders with no prior convictions recorded against them. They all expressed remorse which I accepted was genuine. Some property was recovered.
    
44. For Bal Teo he was not part of the robbery but only provided the information and was paid for providing the information.

Consideration

45. Robbery is a prevalent offence, especially robbery by groups of young people. One needs only to read the news articles in both the formal and informal media to understand the magnitude and scale of this offending across the country. Robbery of homes is an invasion of the sanity of another’s private space, and as the victims have said, the offence leaves homeowners feeling vulnerable and traumatised. I must balance all the factors in this decision to arrive at a sentence that is appropriate for the given case.
    
46. I have considered all the factors in this decision and the principle of parity in sentence for co-offenders enunciated in Taha v The State (2025) SC 2759.
    
47. I find that a sentence of 12 years is appropriate for Jerry Ambo Jorge, Terra Kunakun and Ezekiel Tony Chicken. They were involved in the robbery and equally participated.
    
48. As for Bal Teo, given that he was not involved in the planning and the actual robbery, he is sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment. While he was not involved, he played a significant role in supplying the information needed to commit the robbery, and he received payment from the proceeds of the robbery.
    
49. I have taken into account the pre-sentence custody period and pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence custody periods are deducted.
50. Eziekiel Tony Chicken has been in custody since 17 June 2024, he shall serve 10 years, 3 months, 3 weeks and 4 days. Jerry Ambo Jorge, Bal Teo and Terra Kunakun have been in custody since 24 June 2024. Jerry Ambo Jorge and Terra Kunakun shall serve 10 years, 4 months and 2 days. Bal Teo shall serve 6 years, 4 months and 2 days.
    
51. The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended. I have considered the principle in, Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2003) SC730, State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5 and Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC 564, Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91and The State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320 and am also reminded that the same factors that reduced a sentence cannot be the same factors to consider in suspension because it amounts to a double discount: see Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412.
    
52. The offence is a serious violent offence which is prevalent which calls for the protection of society. While the Probation Officer has said that the offenders are not a threat to society, the very nature of the offence they committed demonstrates otherwise.
    
53. The victims seek a punitive sentence because of the trauma they underwent and continue to suffer. The offenders have no financial means to make restitution. Other than Bal Teo none of them are known in the community, they reside in indicating that supervision is unlikely.
    
54. I however accept that Jerry Ambo Jorge was shot by police. On that basis I exercise my powers pursuant to s 19 of the Criminal Code and suspend 1 year of his sentence where he will be placed on a good behaviour bond for a year. He shall serve the balance 9 years 4 months and 2 days.
    
55. There is nothing favorable in the pre-sentence report for Terra Kunakun and Ezekiel Tony Chicken. None of their sentences are suspended.
    
56. For Bal Teo, the village court magistrate Ate Michael, was interviewed. He has known the offender since he was a child. He is supported by his grandparents when his parents are separated. He describes the offender as caring towards his grandparents and obeys them. He has a good relationship with his community and was surprised when the offender was arrested. Considering the role of the offender and that he has a favorable pre-sentence report, 2 years, 4 months and 2 days of his sentence is suspended, and he is placed on probation for 2 years. On his release he shall be met by the Probation Officers who shall supervise his probation. Prior to being released on probation he shall serve 4 years imprisonment.

Orders

57. The Orders are as follows:
    
1. The offender Jerry Ambo Jorge is sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
2. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the pre-sentence custody period is deducted, and the offender Jerry Ambo Jorge shall serve 10 years, 4 months and 2 days.
3. Pursuant s 19 of the Criminal Code 1 year of the offender Jerry Ambo Jorge sentence is suspended and he is placed on good behaviour bond for a year.
4. The offender Jerry Ambo Jorge Jorge shall serve the balance of 9 years, 4 months and 2 days imprisonment.
5. The offender Terra Kunakun is sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
6. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the pre-sentence custody period is deducted, and the offender Terra Kunakun shall serve 10 years, 4 months and 2 days
7. The offender Ezekiel Tony Chicken is sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
8. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the pre-sentence custody period is deducted, and the offender Ezekiel Tony Chicken shall serve 10 years, 4 months and 2 days
9. The offender Bal Teo is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.
10. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the pre-sentence custody period is deducted, and the offender Bal Teo shall serve 6 years, 4 months and 2 days.
11. Pursuant to s 16 of the Probation Act and the Criminal Code the sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 2 days of the sentence of the offender Bal Teo is suspended and he is placed on Probation for a period of 2 years.
12. The offender Bal Teo will serve the balance of 4 years imprisonment.
13. The offenders shall serve their sentences at Bihute Correctional Institution in Eastern Highlands Province.
14. Warrants of Commitment shall be issued for each of the offenders reflecting their sentences.
15. The CR files and any bail files are closed.

________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: The Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offenders: The Public Solicitor