John Arua Peter v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kapi DCJ, Sakora J, Sawong J
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2000
• Citation: (2000) SC638
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2000
• Judgement Number: SC638

Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Sakora J, Sawong J

Judgment Delivered: 21 June 2000

SC638

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE SUPRREME COURT }

OF JUSTICE AT WAIGANI }

SCRA NO. 12 OF 2000

BETWEEN: JOHN ARUA PETER

APPELLANT

AND: THE STATE

RESPONDENT

Waigani: Kapi, DCJ, Sakora & Sawong, JJ

2000: 26 May, 1st June

Criminal Law — Sentence — Aggravated robbery — Robbery of victim in a car — unlawful use of motor vehicle — Plea of Guilty — Sentence.

Criminal Law — Sentence — Appeal Against Sentence — Appeal dismissed — Sentence of 10 years imprisonment confirmed.

CASES CITED

Gimble v the State [1988 — 89] PNGLR 271

Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605

Public Prosecutor v Don Hale, Unreported Judgment No. SC 564

Appellant in Person

P. Kaluwin, for the Respondent

1st June, 2000

BY THE COURT: This is an appeal by the Appellant against a sentence imposed by the National Court.

He was indicted and pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and one count of illegal use of a motor vehicle. He was convicted on both counts and was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment for robbery and two years for unlawful use of

a motor vehicle. These were then made concurrent. He now appeals in person against the sentence.

The facts were that the Appellant and six other men acting together and using a gun held up the victim who was driving a vehicle he was in lawful possession of. After holding him up the appellant and his accomplices, demanded that the victim come out of the vehicle. When he did not the appellant and his accomplices took a stone and smashed the windscreen of the said vehicle. They also assaulted the victim with an empty beer bottle on the head which broke and cut him.

He raises two grounds in his Notice of Appeal and in his submissions. First he submitted that he had pleaded guilty, that he had co-operated with the police and that he was a first offender.

Secondly, he submitted that he was concerned about the welfare of his mother, because he thinks that his mother might pass away whilst he is in jail and that he would like to see and be with her when she passes away.

Mr. Kaluwin submitted that all the matters urged upon us were taken into consideration by the trial judge. He further submitted that the appellant has not shown where the learned trial judge had fallen into error in the exercise of his sentencing discretion.

The proper principle to be applied by an appeal court in an appeal against sentence is as has been expressed by Kearney J in Norris v The State [1979 PNGLR 605 at 612 — 613, "So the question in practice on a sentence appeal is usually this — has the appellant shown that an error occurred which has the effect of vitiating the trial judge's discretion on sentencing? Such an error may be identifiable:...