The State v Collin Amoko (2002) N2214

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Jalina J
• Judgment Date: 18 April 2002
• Citation: (2002) N2214
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002
• Judgement Number: N2214

Full Title: The State v Collin Amoko (2002) N2214

National Court: Jalina J

Judgment Delivered: 18 April 2002

N2214

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR 1415 OF 1999

THE STATE

-V-

COLLIN AMOKO

POPONDETTA : JALINA, J.

17TH & 18TH APRIL 2002

Criminal Law – Sentence – Armed robbery – Robbery of hotel of K1,332.75 cash – Use of chemical mace against security guards – Discharge of shot gun at security guard – Cash not yet recovered – Prevalence of robbery and other violent crimes – Custodial sentence necessary as deterrent – Criminal Code s.386 (2).

Ms. M. Boni for the State

Mr. P. N’dranoh for the Prisoner

18th April 2002

JALINA, J. This prisoner has pleaded guilty to the armed robbery with actual violence K1,332.75 in cash at about 11 pm on 19th March 1999 at Lamington Lodge here in Popondetta Town.

It appears from the evidence the summary of which was given by the State Prosecutor for purposes of arraignment that the victim, who was employed at the Pokies or Gaming Section of Lamington, was going to the office after taking the money from the Poker Machines. She had the money in a small bag. When she was near the Saloon Bar one of the two boys who were nearby rushed towards her and pulled out the bag from her hand.

In his hand he had a pocketknife. His other friend who was with him had a police issue chemical spray which they sprayed the victim and others who were with her. Security guards who went to her assistance were also sprayed with the chemical spray and they ran towards the main gate and fled. While they were running away they fired shots from a shotgun at security guards who were pursuing them but missed. The money that was stolen in the robbery is yet to be recovered.

As has been stated a while ago in other armed robbery cases such as The State –v- Austin Upena and ors CR 832/2000, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment under s.386 (2) of the Criminal Code Act subject to the Court’s discretion to impose a lesser sentence under s.19 also of the Code. Such lesser sentence has been a term of years. Hence the decision by the Supreme Court in the well known case of Gimble –v The State [1988 – 89] PNGLR 271. The robbery of a hotel which the present robbery is, falls under the third category. A sentence of 5 years was suggested in a contested case. A sentence of less than 5 years has been suggested for an uncontested case. The Court went over to say however, that if aggravating factors such as use of actual violence against the victim, the amount of money stolen is large then sentence in excess of that suggested can be imposed. Discharge of firearms either before, during or after the robbery with a view to enabling the robbery to take place without resistance or to prevent capture has always been considered to be an aggravating factor.

Mr. N’dranoh, lawyer for this prisoner, has submitted relying on Gimble’s case and this prisoner’s plea of guilty and the lack of serious injuries to the victim that a more lenient sentence be imposed. He also relied on a subsequent Supreme Court decision in Tau Jim Anis –v- The State [2000] Unreported SC 642 in which I was a member, disagreed with another Supreme Court in Don Hale –v- The State which was critical of Gimble’s case. But that was on the basis of the place where robbery took place. I still consider the statement by the subsequent Supreme Court that Gimble was 10 years out of date and the offence of violent crimes like robberies using dangerous weapons being on the rise as a valid statement and is still good law. In fact it is now almost 13 years since Gimble was decided in July 1989 and armed robberies have not stopped.

In deciding the length of sentence I should impose I have been taken into account the personal antecedents of this prisoner put to me by Defence Counsel as well the mitigating...