Tau Jim Anis, Warana George Anis and Emies Giamsiling [Emias Giamsing] v The State (2000) SC642

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 25 May 2000
• Citation: (2000) SC642
• Docket Number: SCRA No 1 of 2000
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2000

Full Title: SCRA No 1 of 2000; Tau Jim Anis, Warana George Anis and Emies Giamsiling [Emias Giamsing] v The State (2000) SC642

Supreme Court: Sheehan J, Jalina J, Kirriwom J

Judgment Delivered: 25 May 2000

1 Criminal law—Appeal against severity of sentence—Armed robbery—Plea of Guilty—Sentence of 10 years imprisonment with hard labour—Sentence excessive—Robbery of a factory—Group of armed first–time young offenders—substantial mitigating circumstances—error in the exercise of sentencing discretion—Appeal upheld—Application of guidelines in Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271.

2 Sentencing—"principles" established in Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271 still good law—Supreme Court needs to prescribe new "guidelines" to supersede those in Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271.

3 Evidence—age of offender—judging by physical appearance—Evidence Act, s63

4 Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564, Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271, William Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605 referred to

5 Evidence Act, s63 referred to

___________________________

By the Court: This is an appeal against severity of sentence. The appellants were convicted of armed robbery and each sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment in hard labour.

The appellants were charged with stealing with actual violence from one Rumba Anis and others a sum of K20,234.04 in cash whilst armed with home–made shot–guns and axes, the property of Yahauka Coffee Pty Ltd. The corporate victim of the robbery was Yahauka Coffee Mill owned by Yahauka Coffee Pty Ltd and situated at Aseki in the Menyamya District of Morobe Province. At the time of the offence on 11 December 1999 Rumba Anis and others were at work when the three appellants and one Mesaia Yapet went to the coffee factory whilst armed with guns and an axe and held them up demanding money and threatening to shoot them. In so doing one of them kicked one Thomas Tom and urged him to hand the money over quickly, which they did eventually. The appellants took the money and ran away.

The appellants pleaded guilty and were convicted by Injia J and were each sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment. In appealing against the sentence the appellants claim that the sentence imposed upon each of them is manifestly excessive in the circumstances in that the trial judge erred in not giving due consideration to the reasons for their action and also, in so far as Warana George Anis and Giamsiling Emies are concerned, he failed to give sufficient weight to their youthfulness in that they were 15 at the time they came before the court.

The appellant Tau Jim Anis appears to be the more mature of the two younger appellants. There were four people allegedly involved in the trouble and it was claimed in the National Court and before this Court that these three were only carrying out instructions of a plan that was already masterminded by an insider who was a company worker. The story about an insider seems to be an afterthought, because in the record of interview Tau Jim Anis claimed that it was his plan to rob the company and he led the other co–offenders to join him in this robbery. This story appears to be consistent with the general trend of the evidence where this appellant appears to be the more active of them who is breaking into the offices and breaking open the boxes with his axe searching for money. Even...