Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Wellington [1999] PGNC 9; N1837 (4 March 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1837

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 11 OF 1999

CR 12 OF 1999
THE STATE
V
JONATHAN WELLINGTON

Wewak

Sawong J
2 March 1999
4 March 1999

CRIMINAL LAW - Gang Robbery - Robbery of person on street and trade store - Plea of Guilty - Sentence - Custodial sentence - youthful first offender - Cumulative sentence - 9 years imprisonment on each count - totality sentence - heard sentence on each count reduced to 7 years each - Total effective sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

Counsel

M. Ruarri for the State.

P. Tusais for the Accused.

4 March 1999

SAWONG J: The accused pleaded guilty to two separate counts of aggravated robbery, an offence created by Section 386(2) of the Code. He was convicted and I adjourned sentencing him to today.

The facts of the first case is as follows. On 16 February 1998 at about 9.30 in the morning, an employee of Tang Mow (1960) Pty Ltd was taking the weekends takings of Tang Mow, and was on his way to the nearby PNGBC to deposit the said takings. At that time, he was carrying a sum exceeding K25,000.00. As he was walking towards the said bank, you and two other men held him up using a pistol and a bayonet, took the bag containing the said cash and escaped from the scene. There is no evidence that any of the money that was stolen was ever recovered.

The circumstances of the second case was also fairly short. This second offence occurred on 5 June 1998 at about 1.30pm. That time, you and two friends of yours went to a trade store called GNR Trading which was located near the Dagua market in Wewak. At that time, you and your friends were armed with a shotgun and a pistol. You and your friends used those said dangerous weapons, threaten the employees of the said store and then removed K600.00 in cash and K600.00 worth of store goods and escaped.

You are now aged 18 years old but was 17 years old when you committed the two offences. You completed grade 8 and at the time you committed the crimes, you were completing grade 9 through the College of Distance Education. I also note your family history.

I note that on your allocatus, you said sorry for what you did. You told the court that you are a young man and you asked the court for a lenient sentence. You also told me that the court should consider sending you to Boys Town. Alternatively, you ask the court to give you a wholly suspended sentence, that is to put you on Good Behaviour Bond or Probation.

I have considered all of what you said in your allocatus. However, I do not think that in the circumstance of your cases, you should be sent to either Boys Town nor should a wholly suspended sentence be imposed.

The crime of aggravated robbery is a serious violent and prevalent crime. The law says that you could be sent to jail for the rest of your life. That is how serious this crime is.

The Courts have warned many many times before that, the courts will not hesitate to impose heavier sentences on those offenders who involve themselves in this type of violent criminal conduct.

Your lawyer has referred me to the case of Gimble -v- The State. The first thing to note about that case is that, that was decided in 1988, more than 10 years ago. The second thing to note about it is that since then the crime of armed robbery involving more than one person using violence or threats of violence and any dangerous weapons have increased dramatically. People in Wewak, and in PNG are living and moving around in fear - fear from being attacked and robbed by cowardly youthful members of our society.

I think the time has come for this court to show to the community that it will no longer play lip service but impose appropriate custodial sentences.

I accept in principle the sentencing principles set out in Gimble, but I am firmly of the view that the suggested range of tariffs for various categories of robbery set out therein are no longer appropriate. I consider them to be out dated. Consequently, I intend to depart from the suggested tariffs.

In the present case, I take the following mitigating factors in your favour. First, you pleaded guilty. This has saved the State and Court time and resources in conducting a trial. I also note that you expressed remorseness for your conduct. What has concerned me by far is your age. You were 17 years old at the time you committed the offence. You are now 18 years. But I must also not loose sight of the fact that, this crime of armed robbery is being committed by young people in your age group. I do not therefore, give much weight to your youthfulness.

The crime is a prevalent crime. It is committed nearly every day in the towns and cities of this country by young offenders like you.

Unfortunately for you, you have chosen a life of crime and you must therefore be prepared to face the consequences of your criminal conduct.

There is nothing much else that can be said or taken into your consideration. I have already taken into account all the mitigating factors in your favour. Fortunately, no one was assaulted or injured in either of the two robberies you committed. Nevertheless, the facts of your cases show that you are a person of violence, who acts cowardly and gets his strength from being in a group and using dangerous weapons. I think you are a danger to society.

Both your victims suffered financial loss, loss which they did not deserve. They had worked hard for it, only to be removed violently from them. In the circumstances of your cases, your call for leniency has little weight.

In all the circumstance, on the first count, you are sentenced to 9 years imprisonment in hard labour. In regard to the second count you are also sentenced to 9 years imprisonment in hard labour. They are to be served cumulatively as the offences are separate and distinct. The facts are different, the victims are different. The place and time of the crimes are different.

But I consider that a total of 18 years in hard labour would be a crushing sentence on you. Consequently, I adjust the head sentence on each count to 7 years imprisonment in hard labour.

Thus taking into account the short times you have spent in custody you are sentenced as follows:

1. On the irstt,ounyea7 imps imprisonment in hard labour.

2. & On the secondtcount, 7 yea7 years imprisonment in hard labour.

These are to be serveulati a toffective sentence of 14 years in habour.

Lawyers for the State: Public Prosecutor

>

LawyeLawyers fors for ther the Accu Accused: Public Solicitor