The State v Justin Vincent Nyama [1991] PNGLR 127

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Hinchliffe J
• Judgment Date: 23 April 1991
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1991] PNGLR 127
• Year: 1991
• Judgement Number: N988

Full Title: The State v Justin Vincent Nyama [1991] PNGLR 127

National Court: Hinchliffe J

Judgment Delivered: 23 April 1991

N988

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

THE STATE

V

NYAMA

Waigani

Hinchliffe J

2 April 1991

17 April 1991

23 April 1991

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Particular cases — Robbery — Young first offender — Plea of guilty — Good character and family support — Rehabilitation desirable — Four years IHL — Term suspended on conditions — Home imprisonment — Payment of expenses of probation — Compensation to victim.

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Imprisonment — Suspended sentence — Terms and conditions of — Young first offender — Good character and family support — Home imprisonment — Payment of probation expenses — Compensation to victim.

A 16-year-old youth was charged with robbery of a motor vehicle while in the company of others. He pleaded guilty. The youth was a first offender of good character with a supportive family.

Held

That in the circumstances and taking into account the need for punishment to be rehabilitative, the youth should be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four years in hard labour to be suspended on entering into a period of probation for three years with a number of conditions including home imprisonment, community work service, payment of property damage, compensation to the victim and payment towards the cost of supervising the probation.

Cases Cited

Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271.

Kuri Willie v The State [1987] PNGLR 298.

R v Davey (1980) 2 A Crim R 254.

R v Taggart (1923) 17 Cr App R 132.

The State v Frank Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320.

Plea

An accused pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and the following reasons for sentence were delivered.

Counsel

C Sambua, for the State.

B Takin and D Koeget, for the defendant.

Cur adv vult

23 April 1991

HINCHLIFFE J: You have pleaded guilty that on 31 October 1990 you stole from Lemech Palaso with threats to use actual violence a blue Mazda 929 sedan registration number, ZGB 723, the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. At the time you were in the company of other people.

The brief facts of this case are that at about 8 pm on 31 October, last year, you and five other young people held up the victim outside his residence at Gerehu. He was with his wife and children and had just returned from an outing. He was about to drive the motor vehicle onto his property when you and the others stopped him with threats of violence. It appears that a homemade firearm was being held by one of the group.

The victim handed over the keys and then you and your associates sped off. Soon the police were in pursuit and before too long the driver of the stolen motor vehicle lost control of it and crashed into a tree. Damage to the motor vehicle has been estimated at K2601.55.

After hearing from your lawyer earlier this month I made an order that a pre-sentence report be prepared. That report is now before me and I congratulate the probation officer, Mr Asagi. His report has made my task much easier in this difficult case.

Robbery is a serious offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271, the Supreme Court (Bredmeyer J, Los J and Hinchliffe J) suggested that five years imprisonment was appropriate in a contested case involving a robbery resulting in the theft of a motor vehicle. The said case was referring to people over the age of 18 years. You were either 16 or 17 years at the time so to a certain extent Gimble does not apply. Needless to say it is not uncommon to see people under the age of 18 sent to prison for robbery involving motor vehicles.

The pre-sentence report has indicated to me that your behaviour on 31 October last year was completely out of character. You come from a very strong, loving family. Your father is a senior public servant and there are no financial problems. You live in a high covenant three bedroom house which is very well maintained, clean and tidy. Your family is Christian and there is no alcohol consumed. You were born in Kainantu in 1974 but were brought to Port Moresby in 1975 and lived here until 1988 when you went to Angoram High School and completed Grade 8. In 1989 some classrooms were burnt so you and others left the school. Because you left you were unable to attend any of the National Capital District High Schools on your return to Port Moresby. You have been living with your family since then and have been unemployed. You have no prior convictions. There is no doubt that you have brought considerable shame upon your family as prior to the offence you were quite a well behaved young man, a non-drinker and non-smokr. You never caused any trouble and I gleaned from the said report that your family was more than surprised when they heard about this incident.

Arriving at an appropriate sentence is never easy as every case is different. Here it seems to me, after perusing the said report, that you will be dragged downwards if you are incarcerated. Clearly you are a person who is easily led and I say to myself, what place in the world can a young person be more easily led than in a prison. If you are sent to Bomana Corrective Institution for four or five years then I have no doubt whatsoever that you are going to leave the prison a hardened, well instructed, dangerous criminal. The public will have a real problem on its hands. In fact it will have a monster to contend with. Is that what punishment is all about? Is punishment meant to destroy a person who will then go on to destroy others in our community? I do not think so. I am of the view that punishment should have the end result of rehabilitating the offender and thus making it safe for the community when the offender re-enters its ranks. The court has a...