The State v Micky John Lausi (2001) N2073

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2001) N2073
• Date: 27 March 2001
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2001

Full Title: The State v Micky John Lausi (2001) N2073

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 27 March 2001

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Particular offence—Armed gang robbery on a street and Unlawful use of motor vehicle—Motor vehicle and other properties stolen at gun point—Admission of charges after trial and conviction—Presentence report called for and considered—Young first offender with no prior convictions—Good character reference and community support for rehabilitation and reformation of offender—Compensation considered appropriate and ordered—Prisoner released under strict terms and sentence deferred—Criminal Code (Ch262), s386, s383, s7 and s19.

2 The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007, The State v Morobet Awui Koma and Peter Kevin (1987] PNGLR 262, Joe Foe Leslie Leslie v The State (1998) SC561, Gimble v The State (1988–89] PNGLR 271, Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642, The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, R v Davey (1980] 2 A Crim. R 254, The State v Frank Kagai (1987] PNGLR 320, The State v Nyama (1991] PNGLR 127 and Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: In the written judgment delivered by this Court on 16 February 2001, you were found guilty of one count of armed robbery under s386, and one count of unlawful use of motor vehicle under s383 of the Criminal Code (Ch262) (hereinafter "the Code").

The relevant facts are set out at pages 4–6 of the judgment on verdict, which I need not repeat for the purposes of sentencing.

After hearing submissions on sentence, I call for a presentencing report from the Probation Services. That report was furnished on 2 March 2001, and I had further arguments arising from the report from both the prosecution and your lawyer on 7 March 2001. A decision on sentence was thereafter reserved and this is the decision on sentence.

In the presentencing report and at the hearing of further submissions on 7 March 2001, you admitted to having committed the offences. At that stage, I pointed out that, that admission was a little too late as the State has been put to the trouble and expenses of conducting a trial and establishing your guilt. Consequently, your belated admission will not have any favourable effect for you in relation to your sentence.

The Offences

The offence of armed robbery is prescribed by s386 of the Code in the following terms:

"(1) A person who commits robbery is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(2) If a person charged with an offence against subsection (1)

(a) is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, or

(b) is in company with one or more other persons, or

(c) at immediately before or immediately after, the time of the robbery, wounds or uses, any other personal violence to any person,

he is liable subject to s19 to imprisonment for life."

The offence of unlawful use of a motor vehicle is prescribed by s383 of the Code. That provision reads:

"(1) In this section, "unlawfully uses" includes the unlawful possession by any person of any motor vehicle or aircraft—

(a) without the consent of the owner or of the person in lawful possession of it; and

(b) with intend to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession of it for the use and possession of it temporarily or permanently.

(2) A person who unlawfully uses a motor vehicle or aircraft without the consent of the owner or of the person in lawful possession of the vehicle or aircraft is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(3) This section applies without prejudice to any provision relating to the unlawful use of motor vehicles or aircraft of any other law, but an offender is not liable to be convicted under both these sections and such a provision in respect of anyone and the same unlawful use."

The offence of armed robbery and unlawful use of a motor vehicle in this case were committed out of the same transaction. Accordingly if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed it has to be made concurrent and not cumulative: see The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020 at pages 9 to 10 and the cases referred to there.

Culpability

The driver of the motor vehicle, a Nissan Sunny registration Number LAM 093 namely Paul Egep who was held up at gunpoint. He lost to you and your accomplices his wallet with some cash and the vehicle. The vehicle was driven away by you and your accomplices and was subsequently recovered through excellent police work. You were found guilty of having committed the offence in the company of others. After you were tried and found guilty and convicted of the charges, you admitted to committing those offences. For the purposes of committing the offences, guns and threats of violence were used.

As I said in The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007, going by the authority of The State v Morobet Awui Koma and Peter Kevin (1987] PNGLR 262, at page 263 per Wilson J: "the essential starting point in determining punishment is to fix the...