The State v Gore Yogal (2001) N2080

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kandakasi J
• Judgment Date: 16 March 2001
• Citation: (2001) N2080
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2001
• Judgement Number: N2080

Full Title: The State v Gore Yogal (2001) N2080

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 16 March 2001

N2080

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR No. 1462 of 2000

Between:

THE STATE

And:

GORE YOGAL

GOROKA: KANDAKASI, J

2001: 14th & 16th March

CRIMINAL LAW — PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — Prisoner having no formal or fixed source of income — Inappropriate to order compensation — Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1991.

- Defence not asking for non-custodial sentence — No need to call for and consider a pre-sentencing report.

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Armed robbery with threats of violence — Guilty plea — first time adult offender — 7 years imprisonment less time already spent in custody — Criminal Code (Chp. 262) ss. 386 and 19.

Cases Cited:

Gimble v The State (1988 — 89) PNGLR 271

Public Prosecutors v Don Hale SC 564

Tau Jim Anis & Two Ors v The State (May 2000) SC 642

Counsel:

Mr K. Umpake for the State

Mr M. Apie'e for the Accused

DECISION ON SENTENCE

16th March 2001

KANDAKASI, J.: The accused pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery under s. 386 (1)(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code (Chp. 262) (hereinafter "the Code").

The allegation or charge against the accused was that on the 4th October 2000 between 5 and 5:30 pm at the PNG Motors here in West Goroka, employees of that company were just about to leave their place of work on a company vehicle when the accused and another person armed with a gun appeared and threatened the employees and stole from them a sum of K875.35 in cash and three cheques valued at K4, 282.11 which were in the vehicle, the property of PNG Motors. After stealing the money, the accused and his accomplice escaped. The accused was subsequently apprehended and charged following police investigations.

After arraigning the accused, I entered a provisional plea of guilty and then admitted into evidence without any objection from the defence counsel, the depositions together with the antecedent report. After reading the depositions, I was satisfied that, there was sufficient material to support the guilty plea. I therefore proceeded to confirm the guilty plea and convicted the accused on the one count of armed robbery under s. 386 (1)(2)(a) & (b) of the Code. That followed no s. 563 of the Code application by the defence counsel.

The administration of the allocatus was uneventful. The accused said in his allocatus that the State has had no case against him and that is why he maintained a denial from the date of his arrest up to the record of interview. However, during his incarceration pending trial, he said he changed his attitude and came to know and to respect God, the Constitution and the court system. As a result of that, he decided that the correct thing to do is to admit the charge against him as he in fact committed the offence. It was therefore, not right to maintain his denial.

Mr Apie'e of counsel for the prisoner submitted for the purposes of sentencing that, his client comes from Ku village in the Kamtai area of the Simbu Province. He is aged 30 years and has no formal education or employment. He thus has no definite and fixed source of income except only to survive as a subsistence dweller. Both of his parents are alive and are living at Ku. He has six brothers and one sister in his family and he is the fifth born in the family. He is married with two wives and one male child who is seven years old now.

In his client's mitigation, Mr Apie'e has urged this Court to take into account the fact that his client has pleaded guilty to the charge which has saved the State and the Court the expenses of conducting a trial. He also submitted that, his client's plea of guilty was a manifestation of his remorse and being in the process of being rehabilitated. Mr Apie'e also pointed out that, his client was a first time offender and the offence was committed without any actual violence being used against the victims, evidenced by the lack of any evidence of any injuries to any of the victims.

Section 386of the Code creates and provides for the offence of...