The State v Lance Kuri

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Cannings J
• Judgment Date: 23 August 2014
• Citation: (2014) N5793
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2014
• Judgement Number: N5793

Full : CR NO 935 of 2013; The State v Lance Kuri (2014) N5793

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 23 August 2014

N5793

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 935 OF 2013

THE STATE

-V-

LANCE KURI

Defendant

Kimbe: Cannings J

2014: 12, 22, 23 August

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – armed robbery – Criminal Code, Sections 386(1), (2)(a) and (b) – guilty plea – offender, in company of others, held up a PMV bus, drove it to another location and held up a shop and robbed it.

A man pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery in the company of others by commandeering a bus, driving to another location and holding up a shop and stealing cash and goods valued at K11,819.00. This is the judgment on sentence.

Held:

(1) The maximum sentence for armed robbery is life imprisonment.

(2) Mitigating factors are: the offender pleaded guilty; he has no prior convictions; though violence was threatened, no actual physical violence was inflicted.

(3) Aggravating factors are: a large amount of money stolen, which has not been recovered; the robbery was committed in public place, recklessly putting many people at risk of injury or death; the offender acted in a gang; victims inevitably traumatised by the incident.

(4) A sentence of eight years imprisonment was imposed for each offence, to be served cumulatively, resulting in a total potential sentence of 16 years, however the total sentence was under the totality principle reduced to ten years.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Gimble v the State [1988-1989] PNGLR 271

Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88

Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759

Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564

Public Prosecutor v Kerua [1985] PNGLR 85

Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890

Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642

The State v Alphonse Polpolio and Jeffery Baru (2006) N4514

The State v Dickson Kauboi CR No 495/2001, 07.06.06

The State v Jacky Vutnamur & Kaki Kialo (No 3) (2005) N2919

The State v Justin Komboli (2005) N2891

The State v Kia Tala Moksy CR 785/2005, 12.08.05

The State v Lesley Cletus Malo (2006) N4520

Sentence

This was a judgment on sentence for armed robbery.

Counsel

F K Popeu, for the State

D Kari, for the offender

23rd August, 2014

1. CANNINGS J: Lance Kuri has pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery and has been convicted of those offences under 386(1) and (2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code. These offences were committed at Morokea and Kisere on 5 June 2013. First, the offender and three or four others boarded a 15-seater PMV bus at Kisere, which was heading to Morokea town. At Morokea he and his companions held up the driver and commandeered the bus, stealing it, and drove it to Kisere. At Kisere he and his accomplices entered Greenfern Electrical store, held up the staff and stole at gunpoint a safe and cash and other property to the total value of K11,819.00, the property of Greenfern Electrical.

Antecedents

2. The offender has no prior convictions.

Allocutus

3. The offender was given the opportunity to address the court. He said:

“I have pleaded guilty to the charge of armed robbery. I express remorse and ask this Honourable Court for mercy and for leniency. I am still in school and I wish to continue my education. I regret my involvement in this matter due to peer pressure. I ask for mercy and a non-custodial sentence.”

Other Matters of Fact

4. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will be given the benefit of reasonable doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890). I take into account that he made admissions when interviewed on 6 June 2013 (the next day) and his continual denial of active involvement in the robberies and his assertion that he was not involved in planning them.

Personal Particulars

5. The offender is aged in his 20s and has lived in Kimbe for a long time. He has no bad community record and no record of prior convictions.

Submissions by Defence Counsel

6. Mr Kari put forward a number of mitigating factors: the guilty plea, the lack of prior conviction, the expression of remorse. He submitted that a sentence of no more than eight years imprisonment is warranted, for each offence, which should be concurrent.

Submissions by the State

7. Mr Popeu agreed with eight years for each offence but submitted that the sentences should be served cumulatively.

Decision Making Process

8. To determine the appropriate penalty, and bearing in mind that the offender has been convicted of two offences, I will adopt the following decision making process:

· step 1: what is the maximum penalty for each offence?

· step 2: what is a proper starting point?

· step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?

· step 4: what is the head sentence for each offence?

· step 5: should the sentences be served concurrently or cumulatively?

· step 6: what is the effect of the totality principle?

· step 7: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted?

· step 8: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?

Step 1: What Is The Maximum Penalty For Each Offence?

9. For armed robbery (Criminal Code, Sections 386(1), (2), (a) and (b)) the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. However I have discretion to impose less than the maximum term and suspend part or the entire sentence under Section 19 of the Criminal Code.

Step 2: What Is A Proper Starting Point?

10. The Supreme Court has given sentencing guidelines in a number of leading cases: Gimble v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 271; Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564; Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642; and Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759. Nowadays the starting points are robbery of a house: ten years; robbery of a bank: mine years; robbery of a store, hotel, club, vehicle on the road: eight years; robbery of a person on the street: six years. Each robbery falls into category 3. The starting point for each offence is eight years.

Step 3: What Sentences Have Been Imposed For Equivalent Offences?

11. Recent sentences are shown in the following table.

Sentences for Store and Road Robberies

No	Case	Details	Sentence
1	The State v Kia Tala Moksy CR 785/2005, 12.08.05	Guilty plea – Kimbe Mega Mart store – sole offender – firearm discharged – K1,120.00 stolen.	10 years
2	The State v Justin Komboli (2005) N2891	Trial conducted and sentence passed in absence of offender, who had escaped from custody – trade store robbery, Kavui, near Hoskins – armed with beer bottles, sticks and stones – store goods stolen – sole offender.	4 years
3	The State v Jacky Vutnamur & Kaki Kialo (2005) N2919	Guilty pleas – two offences – in company with others – mature aged offenders – firearms used – robbery of Kapiura Trading Supermarket (K40,000.00 stolen).	12 years, 12 years
4	The State v Dickson Kauboi CR No 495/2001, 07.06.06	Trial – Commodore Bay Company payroll robbery, Kimbe – in company with three other persons – mature aged man – K3,000.00 stolen.	8 years
5	The State v Alphonse Polpolio and Jeffery Baru (2006	Guilty pleas – two store robberies, Kandrian – in company with one other person – mature aged man – K2,807.00 stolen in first robbery – K21,530.00 stolen in second robbery.	5 years, 5 years, 9 years, 9 years
6	The State v Lesley Cletus Malo (2006) N4520	Guilty plea – Spirit of West New Britain robbery, Kimbe – in company with other persons – innocent person stabbed – approx K165,000.00 stolen.	8 years

Step 4: What Is The Head Sentence For Each Offence?

12. The head sentence will reflect the following mitigating and aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors:

· the offender pleaded guilty;

· he has no prior convictions;

· though violence was threatened, no actual physical violence was inflicted.

Aggravating factors:

· a large amount of money stolen, which has not been recovered;

· the robbery was committed in a public place, recklessly putting many people at risk of injury or death;

· the offender acted in a gang;

· victims inevitably traumatised by the incident.

13. I uphold the position of the State and impose a sentence of eight years imprisonment for each offence. The total potential sentence the offender is facing is:

8 years + 8 years = 16 years.

Step 5: Should The Sentences Be Served Concurrently Or Cumulatively?

14. I now have to decide whether the head sentences should be served concurrently (the sentences are served at the same time) or cumulatively (the sentences are added together). Here there were two separate incidents, with different victims, therefore the sentences should be served cumulatively (Public Prosecutor v Kerua [1985] PNGLR 85, Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88).

Step 6: What Is The Effect Of The Totality Principle?

15. I now look at the total sentence the offender is facing, to see if it is appropriate having regard to the totality...