The State v William Nanua Kapris and Jacob Peningi Okimbari and Collin Masilo and Johnny Gumaira and Damien Inanei and Kito Aso and Joyce Maima and Bobby Selan and Reuben Micah and Isabella Kivare and Elvis Bala Aka and Peter Allan Popo (2011) N4305
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Court | National Court |
Date | 19 May 2011 |
Citation | (2011) N4305 |
Docket Number | CR NOS 251 OF 2010 & 1455, 1457, 1444, 1447, 235 & 287, 78 & 79, 1431, 76 & 77, 239, 237 & 235 OF 2009 |
Year | 2011 |
Full Title: CR NOS 251 OF 2010 & 1455, 1457, 1444, 1447, 235 & 287, 78 & 79, 1431, 76 & 77, 239, 237 & 235 OF 2009; The State v William Nanua Kapris and Jacob Peningi Okimbari and Collin Masilo and Johnny Gumaira and Damien Inanei and Kito Aso and Joyce Maima and Bobby Selan and Reuben Micah and Isabella Kivare and Elvis Bala Aka and Peter Allan Popo (2011) N4305
National Court: Cannings, J.
Judgment Delivered: 19 May 2011
SENTENCES
CRIMINAL LAW—sentencing—armed robbery (Criminal Code, s386)—conspiracy (s515)—kidnapping for ransom (s354(1))—unlawful deprivation of liberty (s355(a))—receiving stolen property (s410(1))
Twelve offenders were convicted after trial of armed robbery of a bank and conspiracy. Some were also convicted of other offences (kidnapping for ransom, unlawful deprivation of liberty, receiving stolen property) committed in connection with the robbery. This is the judgment on sentence.
Held:
(1) When sentencing an offender for multiple offences the court should arrive at a notional sentence for each offence and then: determine whether the sentences should be served cumulatively or concurrently, apply the totality principle and arrive at a total head sentence, decide whether any pre-sentence period in custody should be deducted and decide whether to suspend any part of the total sentence and then make a final determination of the time to be served in custody.
(2) After going through that process in respect of each offender, the court passed the following sentences:
No Name Total head Pre-sentence Resultant Amount of Time to be Place of
Sentence period length of sentence served in custody
deducted sentence suspended custody (CI)
to be
served
1 William 30 years Nil 30 years Nil 30 years Bomana
Nanua
Kapris
2 Jacob 15 years 1 year 14 years 3 years 11 years Beon
Peningi
Okimbari
3 Collin 10 years 1 year, 8 years, 3 years 5 years, Beon
Masilo 2 months 10 months 10 months
4 Johnny 12 years 2 years, 9 years 3 years 6 years Bomana
Gumaira 9 m, 1 w 2 m , 3 w 2 m 3 w
5 Damien 10 years 2 years, 7 years 4 years 3 years Beon
Inanei 10 m, 2 w 1 m , 2w 1 m, 2 w
6 Kito 12 years 2 years, 9 years Nil 9 years Lakiemata
Aso 9 months 3 months 3 months
7 Joyce 10 years 2 years, 7 years 4 years 3 years Beon
Maima 8 months 4 months 4 months
8 Bobby 10 years 2 years, 7 years 3 years 4 years Beon
Selan 7 m, 2 w 4 m, 2 w 4 m, 2 w
9 Reuben 12 years 2 years, 9 years 4 years 5 years Beon
Micah 10 m, 1 w 1 m, 3 w 1 m, 3 w
10 Isabella 8 years 2 years, 5 years 4 years 1 year Bomana
Kivare 10 months 2 months 2 months
11 Elvis 8 years 2 years, 5 years 4 years 1 year Lakiemata
Bala 10 months 2 months 2 months
Aka
12 Peter 12 years 2 years, 9 years 3 years 6 years Beon
Allan 10 m, 2 w 1 m, 2 w 1 m, 2
Popo
Cases cited
The following cases are cited in the judgment:
Acting Public Prosecutor v Konis Haha [1981] PNGLR 205; Applications by John Ritsi Kutetoa, George Taunde, Titus Soumi and Andrew Amid (2005) N2819; Dadly Henry Gorop v The State (2003) SC732; Emil Kongian v The State (2007) SC928; Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271; Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Paul Mase and Kopa Lore John v The State [1991] PNGLR 88
Philip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759
Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC56
Public Prosecutor v Kerua [1985] PNGLR 85
Public Prosecutor v Terrence Kaveku [1977] PNGLR 110
Richard Liri v The State (2007) SC883
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890
Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642
The State v A Juvenile “ET” CR No 1012/ 2003, 09.04.05
The State v A Juvenile, “TAA” (2006) N3017
The State v Aaron Lahu (2005) N2798
The State v Alphonse Polpolio and Jeffery Baru CR No 865 + 701/2006, 14.07.06
The State v Chris Baili CR No 1396/2006, 17.08.07
The State v David Bandi CR No 729/2003, 20.04.05
The State v Dickson Kauboi CR No 495/2001, 07.06.06
The State v Francis Vau Kamo CR 663-664/1998, 06.04.06
The State v Iori Veraga (2005) N2921
The State v Jacky Vutnamur & Kaki Kialo (No 3) (2005) N2919
The State v James Negol (2005) N2801
The State v Jelio Yawi (2009) N3631
The State v Justin Komboli (2005) N2891
The State v Kia Tala Moksy CR 785/2005, 12.08.05
The State v Lucas Soroken Sembengo, Bob Alois Wafu & Raphael Lawrence Mandal (2006) 2801
The State v Mogi Konda CR No 1316/2005, 19.04.05
The State v Owen Gabriel Koud CR No 312/2010, 20.05.10
The State v Two Juveniles, “MK” & “PSA” CR No 372/2005, 25.08.05
The State v William Nanua Kapris & 13 Others (2011) N4232
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations appear in the judgment:
2IC—second-in-charge
BSP—Bank South Pacific
CI—Correctional Institution
CR—Criminal file reference
DCA—Department of Civil Aviation
EHP—Eastern Highlands Province
ESP—East Sepik Province
HS—High School
Is—Island
K—Kina
LLG—Local-level Government
LPV—Limited Preferential Voting
m—month(s)
MRO—Mineral Refining Operations
N—National Court judgment
No—number
para—paragraph
PMV—public motor vehicle
PNG—Papua New Guinea
PNGLR—Papua New Guinea Law Reports
s—Section
SC—Supreme Court judgment
SDA—Seventh-Day Adventist
Sgt—Sergeant
SP—South Pacific
St—Saint
v—versus
w—week(s)
WNB—West New Britain
SENTENCES
This was a judgment on sentence for 12 offenders convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy and variously of kidnapping, unlawful deprivation of liberty and receiving stolen property.
19 May, 2011
1. CANNINGS J: Twelve offenders are before the court to be sentenced for their involvement in an armed robbery that occurred on the morning of Saturday 5 July 2008 at the Madang branch of Bank South Pacific. Approximately K2.4 million cash was stolen. After a joint trial they were each convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy. Some were also convicted of other offences (kidnapping for ransom, unlawful deprivation of liberty and/or receiving stolen property) committed in connection with the robbery. Details of the circumstances in which the offences were committed are in the judgment on verdict (The State v William Nanua Kapris & 13 Others (2011) N4232).
2. Though jointly tried and subject to a joint sentencing hearing, each offender must be individually sentenced in a way that takes account of the particular offences of which he or she has been convicted and his or her level of involvement in the crimes and individual circumstances. The following process will be followed in relation to each offender:
Step 1—convictions—records the particular offences of which the offender has been convicted.
Step 2—antecedents—states whether the offender has any prior convictions.
Step 3—allocutus—summarises what the offender has said in allocutus, ie the part of the sentencing hearing where the convicted person is, before the court passes sentence, accorded the right to address the court.
Step 4—pre-sentence report—summarises the pre-sentence report. Each offender requested the court to arrange a report by the Community Based Corrections Service. The report describes the offender’s background (family, education, employment etc) and personal circumstances and assists the court in making a decision on what the total head sentence should be and whether any part of it should be suspended.
Step 5—notional sentences—is where the court allocates a notional head sentence to each offence. As each offender has been convicted of multiple offences it is necessary to first fix a sentence for each offence, which takes account of the maximum penalty available for that offence, the relevant starting point and mitigating and aggravating factors. These notional sentences are then added together to arrive at a total potential sentence.
Step 6—concurrent or cumulative—is where the court exercises its discretion whether the sentence for each offence should be served concurrently or cumulatively with other sentences. If any sentences are to be served concurrently an adjustment will be made to the total potential sentence.
Step 7—total head sentence—involves application of the totality principle. The court looks at the total potential sentence and assesses whether it is fair and just having regard to the totality of criminality involved. If it appears that it would be a crushing sentence the total head sentence can be reduced.
Step 8—pre-sentence period in custody—is where the court records whether the offender has already spent any time in custody (in remand) in connection with the offences and, if so, whether all or part of that time should be deducted from the total head sentence.
Step 9—suspension—determines whether the court should suspend all or part of the total head sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In the matter of an application for enforcement of human rights by Reuben Micah (2013) N5427
...David Wari Kofowei [1987] PNGLR 5 The State v William Nanua Kapris & 13 Others (2011) N4232 The State v William Nanua Kapris and 11 Others (2011) N4305 Topo v Kaman (2009) N3773 Kawi Yawi v The State [2002] PNGLR 711 APPLICATION This was an application by a detainee for enforcement of human......
-
The State v Timothy Damusuk
...The State v Steven Tari Nangimon Garasai (2010) N4137 The State v Toipo Dimasi (2008) N3550 The State v William Nanua Kapris & 12 Others (2011) N4305 The State v William Nanua Kapris (2010) N4139 Dates The events referred to in this judgment occurred in 2013 unless otherwise indicated. Abbr......
-
The State v Samuel Sammy Engo (No 2)
...(2005) N2798 The State v Francis Vau Kamo; Cr 663—664 (06.04.06) (unreported and unnumbered judgment) The State v William Nanua Kapris (2011) N4305 The State v Samuel Sammy Engo; CR 343 of 2011 (unnumbered and unreported judgment delivered on 16th October 2013 at Alotau) JUDGMENT OF SENTENC......
-
In the matter of an Application for Enforcement of Human Rights by Jacob Okimbari (2014) N5420
...PNGLR 5 The State v William Nanua Kapris & 13 Others (2011) N4232 The State v William Nanua Kapris and Jacob Peningi Okimbari & Others (2011) N4305 APPLICATION This was an application for enforcement of human rights. 1. CANNINGS J: Jacob Okimbari applies for enforcement of his human rights ......
-
In the matter of an application for enforcement of human rights by Reuben Micah (2013) N5427
...David Wari Kofowei [1987] PNGLR 5 The State v William Nanua Kapris & 13 Others (2011) N4232 The State v William Nanua Kapris and 11 Others (2011) N4305 Topo v Kaman (2009) N3773 Kawi Yawi v The State [2002] PNGLR 711 APPLICATION This was an application by a detainee for enforcement of human......
-
The State v Timothy Damusuk
...The State v Steven Tari Nangimon Garasai (2010) N4137 The State v Toipo Dimasi (2008) N3550 The State v William Nanua Kapris & 12 Others (2011) N4305 The State v William Nanua Kapris (2010) N4139 Dates The events referred to in this judgment occurred in 2013 unless otherwise indicated. Abbr......
-
The State v Samuel Sammy Engo (No 2)
...(2005) N2798 The State v Francis Vau Kamo; Cr 663—664 (06.04.06) (unreported and unnumbered judgment) The State v William Nanua Kapris (2011) N4305 The State v Samuel Sammy Engo; CR 343 of 2011 (unnumbered and unreported judgment delivered on 16th October 2013 at Alotau) JUDGMENT OF SENTENC......
-
In the matter of an Application for Enforcement of Human Rights by Jacob Okimbari (2014) N5420
...PNGLR 5 The State v William Nanua Kapris & 13 Others (2011) N4232 The State v William Nanua Kapris and Jacob Peningi Okimbari & Others (2011) N4305 APPLICATION This was an application for enforcement of human rights. 1. CANNINGS J: Jacob Okimbari applies for enforcement of his human rights ......