The State v Vincent Malara (2002) N2188

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2002) N2188
• Date: 20 February 2002
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002

Full Title: The State v Vincent Malara (2002) N2188

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 20 February 2002

1 CRIMINAL LAW—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—Sentencing—Sentencing need to be guided by the purposes of sentencing—The sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the effects of past sentences—Allegations or pleas in the prisoner's allocutus must be considered and if not consistent with evidence they can be rejected.

2 CRIMINAL LAW—SENTENCING—Armed robbery—By gang of about 12 men—Willful damage to property to execute the robbery—Actual and threats of violence used against victims of offence—Large sums of money and property of substantial value stolen—No evidence of any of the stolen items recovered expect for a very small portion—Prisoner with prior conviction and not a young first time offender—Criminal Code s386(1).

3 The State v Jimmy Yasasa Lep (1996) N1495, The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007, Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271, Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642, The State v Nickson Pari (No 2) (2001) N2033, The State v Foxsy Awonipa (1999) N1910, Andrew Uramani v The State [1996] PNGLR 287, Thomas Waim v The State (1997) SC519 referred to

Facts:

The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of armed 12 men gang robbery contrary to s306(1) and s306(2) of the Criminal Code. A gun, crow bar, a pinch bar and other weapons were used to execute the robbery. The crow and the pinch bars were used to break down the doors to a supermarket and its office. Total of all that was stolen in cash, cheques and goods added to over K26,000.00. Save for only K500.00, none of the items stolen were recovered.

The prisoner had a prior conviction for arson. As such he was not a first time offender. His claims in allocutus of circumstances forcing him to commit the offence was in conflict with evidence in Court.

Held:

1. The crime of robbery has taken a quantum leap and as such sentences must also take a quantum leap.

2. A sentencing judge should not be restricted by principles such as "no quantum leaps" but must be guided by he purposes of criminal sentencing.

3. A sentence must be responsive to the wishes or calls for stiffer sentences for the kind of offence under consideration in the exercise of the people's judicial power under our constitutional framework but within the limits of the law.

4. Robbery by such a large number of 12 men and being armed with heavy tools like crow bars and pinch bars and guns is indicative of robbers getting more sophisticated, so sentences must be one that is considered to serve as a personal and general deterrence.

5. Parliament has prescribed the maximum of life imprisonment but having regard to sentencing tariff and the prisoner's guilty plea, a sentence of 15 years is appropriate. The prisoner is therefore sentenced to 15 years in hard labour less time spent awaiting his trial.

Decision on Sentence

___________________________

Kandakasi J: You pleaded guilty to one charge of armed robbery contrary to s386(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, on 14 February here in Wewak. I reserved a ruling on you sentence to carefully consider your reasons for committing the offence, the facts and the law on sentencing in this type of cases.

In your address before sentence, you said you were forced to commit the offence by circumstances you were placed in. You blamed the prison system for failing to send you back to your home province of Manus, after you completed serving a sentence of fours years given by the National Court for arson at the Boystown here in Wewak. You claimed having gone and seen the relevant office and officers for assistance back to your home province without success. You said, being from Manus, you had no friends or wantoks to turn to here in Wewak for assistance. You therefore, turned to committing the offence to get some money to go back to your home province. In the circumstances, you asked this Court to exercise mercy in your favour and give a lighter sentence.

I am required as a matter of law to consider what you say in the light of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence to which you have pleaded guilty and the relevant law on sentencing in this type of...