The State v Tony Pandau Hahuahori [Hahuahoru] (No 2) (2002) N2186

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2002) N2186
• Date: 21 February 2002
• Year: 2002

Full Title: The State v Tony Pandau Hahuahori [Hahuahoru] (No 2) (2002) N2186

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 21 February 2002

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Murder—Death resulting from failed robbery—Two gun shots fired at driver and passengers on highway—Six people including deceased seriously injured—One of them loss total use of one of his eyes—Prisoner with prior convictions—No good mitigating factors—Co–accused received 30 years on guilty pleas—Parity of sentence considered—Appropriate case to impose sentence over and above sentences received by co–accused—Life imprisonment imposed

2 The State v Eddy Kava Laura (No 2) [1988–89] PNGLR 98, The State v Raphael Kimba Aki (No 2) (2001) N2082, The State v Vincent Malara (2002) N2188, Winugini Urugitaru v R [1974] PNGLR 283, Andrew Uramani v The State [1996] PNGLR 287, Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653, The State v Jason Dongoma (2000) N2038 and The State v Peter Yawoma (2001) N2032 referred to

Facts:

The prisoner was found guilty and convicted of murder following a failed robbery. That was after a trial. Five others were seriously injured in the incident leading to the murder including the total loss of one eye by one of the victims. His co–accused and him were rounded up by village leaders and handed over to police. The co–accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. They were first time offenders. The Prisoner had a prior conviction for arson and failed to show by any evidence that the village leaders were wrong in including him in their round up of the offenders.

Held:

1. Given his prior conviction and not guilty plea resulting in a trial and having no mitigating factors in his favour he must be treated differently from his co–accused for the purposes of sentencing.

2. The crime of armed robbery is on the increase resulting in calls for stiffer penalties and as such, sentences higher than those already imposed must be given.

3. In the particular circumstances of the case, with the prisoner having no mitigating factor in his favour the maximum sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate and is therefore imposed.

Decision on sentence

___________________________

Kandakasi J: On Tuesday 19 February, I found you guilty on one count of murder contrary to s300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and convicted you for the murder of one Freddy Bill at Japaraka No 1 village on 9 March 1999.

The Relevant Facts

The relevant facts are set out in my judgment on the verdict handed down on 19 February 2002. For the purposes of sentencing, the pertinent parts of the facts are these. On the night of 8 March 1999, you, Ben Wango and Nick Sengi Pori planned the robbery of a PMV armed with shotguns. The next morning you wake up early in the morning and after seeing your wife off to town, you and your gang proceeded with your plan against a PMV truck owned by Hama Brothers. That PMV was loaded with passengers and was heading for Wewak...