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

State v Tikambari [2011] PGNC 224; N4553 (13 December 2011)

N4553

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 162 of 2009

THE STATE

V

CLINTON TIKAMBARI

Lae: Batari J
2011: 13 December

CRIMINAL LAW– sentence – armed robbery – accused posing as policeman armed with pistol stole from factory, K6,557.60 employee pay – prior conviction for similar offence - need for deterrent punishment – sentence of 15 years appropriate.

Cases Cited

Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271
Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564
Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642
Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759

Counsel

J. Done & H. Simon, for the State
L. Vava Jnr., for the Accused

SENTENCE

13 December, 2011

1. BATARI, J: You have been convicted of the offence of armed robbery following a trial. The facts are set out in the published judgment.
   
2. Together with the assistance of others and two getaway vehicles, you entered the office premises of Cold Process Tyres Limited located in the heart of Lae City, dressed in police uniform and armed with a factory-made pistol. You pretended to deliver a letter to a lady Office Supervisor whose husband is a policeman. When she opened the envelope, a note it contained read; "I am not a policeman. I am a robber."
   
3. You then threatened the three female staff present with the pistol and stole K6,557.60 which was in pay-packets for the company employees. You threatened the lives of the three female staff telling them not to move or make any sound. You pointed the pistol at the receptionist when she stood up and at the pay-mistress; you threatened her, urging her to hurry up. She was unable to locate a bag so, you instructed her to put the money in her bilum and hand it over to you.
   
4. This offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
   
5. Armed robbery has become a very common occurrence in our cities, towns, along the roads, highways and spreading into rural areas. It is an unfortunate reality that hardly a day goes by without a report of such crimes in the print as well as the electronic media. Consequently, our people and the image of our country suffer through adverse publicity. Armed robberies damage our people and the image of this country.
   
6. People should feel safe throughout Papua New Guinea when and wherever they are going about their lawful duties or at their leisure time. They should be able to move around freely and should not have to live in fear as many do, of armed robbers prowling the cities, towns and rural areas to steal from the unwary on the road or streets, business houses, clubs, vehicles on the road, factories, banks and homes.
   

8. Your actions are most serious. Business houses create employment for ordinary Papua New Guineans and what you did is an act of violence against the very basis of people's right to employment. Your actions threaten the lawful transaction of commerce and workers are put at risk of losing employment, their source of livelihood when business houses closed doors due to such criminal activities as seen in your actions.

9. The fear and apprehension suffered by the three office ladies must be beyond measure. The potential for serious injury such close encounter which a robber brings with him is great. In this case, no personal injury was suffered. But this does little to assist you on sentence. You threatened to use a factory-made pistol which has high potential for cause of casualty. This must have been most distressing for the victims.

10. You committed this robbery against a tyre factory. Your actions fall within the third category of robberies which according to the settled principle in Gimble -v- The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271 a sentence of 5 years imprisonment would be justified in a contested case. That mid sentence term has now increased to 8 years: Tau Jim Anis -v- The State (2000) SC642; Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564; Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759.

11. The increase in sentence is to protect business houses from this type of banditry. The alarming feature of your case is that it involved high level of planning, preparation and execution. The robbery was staged with you posing as a policeman in uniform on an errand to deliver a mail to a policeman's wife at the tyre factory. Two vehicles were used. One was the getaway vehicle from the scene and the second was a transfer vehicle to "throw police off" your trail.

12. The facts of this banditry is not only a threat to the individual law abiding business houses, they are also a threat to the economy of Lae, this province and PNG. They are a threat to investor confidence and also sadly bring unwarranted discredit, on our people and country.

13. A peculiar feature of your conduct is the use of police uniform. It is evidence of the expanding ways, means and degree of planning and sophistication with which armed robberies are now being committed. The use of police uniform was clearly calculated to allay suspicion and to ensure unimpeded access to restricted areas of the business premises.

14. It is a very serious matter when people deviously go to extraordinary lengths to use law enforcement identity to commit or facilitate commission of a criminal act. Such conduct is an attack on the very foundation of the administration of justice itself. It undermines the confidence, trust and hope the people have in law enforcement agencies to uphold the rule of law and to protect the people. Those who use police uniform to facilitate their criminal activities commit armed robbery of the most serious type. They can expect a severe punishment.

15. I have considered all that your lawyer has submitted on your behalf. There is not much that is apparent or latent from the circumstances of the crime and your personal circumstances which support your lawyer's contentions for a lower sentence. Mr Vava submitted that your case calls for a sentence within the lower end of 5 years to 15 years sentencing range for the third category of robbery.

16. I agree that this case does not warrant the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. A term of years is called for. Because you pleaded not guilty, I will start with the mid-range of 8 years and consider a term up to 15 years and at the highest, 20 years.

17. You have asked for leniency for the sake of your wife and children. I am however not impressed with your plea. You did not consider the welfare of your family when you set out on your evil enterprise. And there is nothing special about your family that may call for a lower sentence. But more importantly, this is your second conviction for the same offence.

18. In your first conviction, you were sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. Then after you were arrested and detained for this offence, you escaped twice from custody. All these show that you have not learned anything from your first conviction. Your conduct shows that you have no respect for the law and that you are not prepared to be subjected to correction. Your propensity towards uncaring anti-social behaviour is apparent from your background.

19. The community will be safer if you are sent to prison for a long time. The punishment I am going to impose on you is I believe a reflection of the community's abhorrence of such activity where armed men hold-up and rob business houses which are carrying out their lawful commercial activities. I believe that, crimes in the circumstances of your case are in the most serious category which the Court has to deal with.

20. You are sentenced to 15 years in hard labour. You have spent 20 months in pre-trial custody. I will deduct that from the head sentence. You have 13 years 4 months to serve with hard labour.

______________________________________________________

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Paul Paraka Lawyers: Lawyer for the Accused