The State v Nickson Pari (No 2) (2001) N2033

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2001) N2033
• Date: 10 January 2000
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2001

Full Title: The State v Nickson Pari (No 2) (2001) N2033

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 10 January 2000

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Unlawful grievous bodily harm—Offence committed in course of armed robbery—Guilty Plea—Presentence report considered—Code Act (Ch262) s319, s18, s19.

2 CRIMINAL LAW—Compensation inappropriate to be ordered—Compensation relevant factor only in mitigation—Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1991, s2–s7.

3 The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, The State v Isaac Wapuri (1994] PNGLR 271, The State v Ottom Masa (2000) CR542 of 2000 (Unreported and unnumbered judgment dated 20 December 2000, Kandakasi J), The State v Margaret John (No 2) (1996] PNGLR 298, The State v Rex Lialu (1988–89] PNGLR 449, The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007 and Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: Following the decision in The State v Nickson Pari (No 1) (2000) N2037, the State presented an indictment against the Defendant, this time charging him with one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm contrary to s319 of the Criminal Code Act (Ch262) (hereinafter the Code).

The indictment was presented on the 13 of December 2000. After taking the plea and administering the allocutus, all of, which were uneventful, I adjourned the proceedings to 20 December 2000 and requested a presentencing report. That report was compiled and presented to the court on 20 December 2000. Both parties were asked to make any submissions they may wish to make if any on the report but they chose not to make any submissions on it. The Court then adjourned the proceedings to today for decision on sentence. The following is the Court's decision.

Facts

As I said in The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, at 3 to 4 of the judgment, the Court is entitled to gather the relevant facts from the depositions. Accordingly, the facts of this case are taken out of the depositions. I will also take into account the facts presented in the presentencing report.

The prisoner and his father came to Lae about three years ago while his mother is still in their home province and village Kiaru, in the Yangoru District of the East Sepik Province. They do not have a house or place of residence of their own in Lae. So they stay with their relative's from time to time. Most of the time, the prisoner stayed with his uncle at five–mile block. Neither the father nor the prisoner has any form of employment.

The prisoner is about 18 years old and dropped out of grade 6. Whilst at five–mile in Lae, he spent most of his time with drug dealers and troublemakers or criminals and has a very bad attitude. His uncle thus, became very concerned and at one time paid his ship fares to go back to his village where his mother was but the prisoner returned from Madang.

On the 7 of June 2000, at about 5.00pm, the prisoner left his uncle's house and meet up with two of his friends with intend to go and holdup and steal from a group of people who were playing cards at four mile. At that time the prisoner was armed with a home made gun and his accomplices were armed with knives. As the prisoner and his accomplices approached the group of people they intended to holdup and steal, a man saw them and notified the others. That destroyed the prisoner and his accomplices plan to holdup those who were playing cards and steal from them. The plan therefore failed. The prisoner and his accomplices thus went and waited for the person who spoiled their plan. Eventually when that man turned up where they were waiting, he was held up and K10.00 was stolen from him...