The State v Zima Munduai (2000) N2036

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kandakasi J
• Judgment Date: 12 December 2000
• Citation: (2000) N2036
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2000
• Judgement Number: N2036

Full Title: The State v Zima Munduai (2000) N2036

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 12 December 2000

N2036

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No 1360 of 2000

THE STATE

-v-

ZIMA MUNDUAI

LAE : KANDAKASI, J.

2000: December 5, 12

Counsel

N. Miviri, for the State

M. Mwawesi, for the Defendant

12 December 2000

KANDAKASI, J : The State presented an indictment against the Defendant on the 5th of December 2000, charging him with one count of armed robbery under s.386 of the Criminal Code Act (Ch. 262) hereinafter "the Code"). The Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and was accordingly convicted. That followed the Court reading the depositions and being satisfied that there was sufficient facts to support the guilty plea.

Facts

On the 30th of June 2000, the Defendant in the company of 3 others went to the Bugandi High School at about 2.30pm. They were armed with a toy pistol and two home-made guns. They used those weapons to threaten teachers and steal from some female teachers their bags. After the offence was committed the Defendant and his accomplices ran away. Subsequently, the Defendant was arrested by police.

In his record of interview, the Defendant admitted committing the offence and has since co-operated with police. He has also pleaded guilty before this Court thereby saving the associate costs and time that would have been spent on a trial. These factors will be taken into account in his mitigation.

Allocutus

In his allocutus, the Defendant said this was his first offence and has no prior conviction, which is confirmed by the antecedent report. He said he was sorry for what he had done before this Court and God. He was influenced by his accomplices to commit the offence. He was not the main actor or the mastermind of the robbery. The pistol he had was just a toy not intended to kill or hurt anyone. He then asked the Court to consider his background as a young first time offender. He is the only one looking after his mother who is crippled together with his younger siblings. His father is deceased and the sister after him is married and she lives with her own family. He is employed on a casual basis by the University of Technology mess as a kitchen hand. In his conclusion he asked the Court to be merciful toward him and place him under probation or a good behaviour bond so he can continue to support his mother and younger siblings.

Address on Sentence

Mr. Mwawesi, for the Defendant adopted what his client said in his allocutus and added that his client is a 19 year old, single and come from Guvu Pindiu, in the Kabwum District of the Morobe Province. His client is educated up to Grade 8. He is a follower of the Lutheran Church. He has spent 5 months and 5 days in custody awaiting his trial up to the 5th of December 2000.

In his client's mitigation, Mr. Mwawesi asked the Court to consider the fact that his client has pleaded guilty to the charge and that his client has co-operated with police. He has no prior convictions and is a first time young offender. There were no serious injuries inflicted upon any of the victims and he has not benefited from the offence. Mr. Mwawesi then concluded by arguing for a non-custodial sentence. Counsel did not however assist the Court by his failure to point out why a custodial sentence was inappropriate. He did not address the Court on any of the aims and purposes of sentencing. Therefore much of the work was left to the Court to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

Mr. Miviri for the State made no submissions on sentence.

Pre-Sentencing Report

Before going onto determining an appropriate sentence I request a pre-sentencing report from the Probation Service. On the Probation Officer's indication, the matter was adjourned to the 12th of December 2000. The Probation Officer in a letter dated 11th of December 2000 informed the Court that the pre-sentencing report will not be ready by the 12th of December. The matter was therefore adjourned to the 20th December 2000 when that service indicated the report would be ready.

The report is now before the Court and the Court is grateful to the Probation Service for having that completed within the limited time and resources given. This Court has carefully considered the report and its recommendations. That is reflected in the sentence to be given to the prisoner shortly.

Sentence

The offence of armed robbery is prescribed by s.386 of the Code. It carries a maximum of life imprisonment. However, in the exercise of the discretion given to the Courts by s.19 of the Code, sentences far less than that have been imposed. The Supreme Court in Gimble v. The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271, first set the guidelines for sentences in armed robbery cases. In so doing, it came up with four categories of robberies with the more serious one, robbery of a dwelling house at the top and the less serious one of a robbery of a person on the street at the bottom. Between those two are robbery of a bank and robbery of a store, club or a vehicle on the street and the like at the second and third categories respectively. The starting sentence for each of those categories were put at 7 years, 6 years, 5 years and 3 years respectively.

On the 27th of August 1998, the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor v. Don Hale [1998] SC 564 increased the guidelines set for robbery of a dwelling house to 10...