Public Prosecutor v Womla
SENTENCE
Introduction
1. Max Womla pleaded guilty to a single charge of arson. Robyn Womla pleaded guilty to complicity to the arson. They are both in Court to be sentenced
2. The maximum penalty for the offence of arson is 10 years imprisonment. Sections 30 of the Penal Code [CAP 135] regarding complicity in offences states: -
“Any person who aids, counsels, or procures the commission of a criminal offence shall be guilty as an accomplice and may be charged and convicted as a principle offender”.
3. And s32 regarding punishment of accomplices and co-offenders states: -
“Subject to any express provision of law, an accomplice and a co- offender shall be punishable in like manner as a principal offender.”
The Facts
4. Max Womla and Robyn Womla felt hurt after the death of their sister believing that the victim, Shedrack Yanhambath was involved in or somehow caused the death of their sister.
Count1
5. Max Womla came up with a plan to go and burn Shedrack Yanhambath’s house. On the night of 15 November 2025, he had with him a plastic container of benzene and asked Robyn Womla to follow him. Upon reaching the victim’s house, Max Womla poured the benzene around the house walls then set it on fire with some match sticks.
6. The fire burned and consumed the whole house. Max Womla knew at that time that the victim was sleeping in the house when he set it on fire. When the fire was burning the two defendants returned to their house.
Count 2
7. On the night of 15 November 2025, Max Womla told Robyn Womla about his plan to burn down the victim’s house. Robyn Womla agreed to follow Max Womla to go and burn the victim’s house.
8. Upon reaching the victim’s house, Robyn Womla kept watch while Max Womla poured benzene and set fire to the house. When the fire grew bigger they both left the area.
9. At that time Robyn Womla knew that that the victim was sleeping inside his house when it was set on fire.
10. The whole house was burned to the ground. All the victim’s property in the house were also destroyed in the fire and nothing was able to be saved. The victim who was sleeping in the house was only able to save himself after smelling benzene and seeing the fire.
11. The total cost of the damage to the house and it’s contents is said to be VT 650,000.
Starting point of sentence
12. The starting point of sentence is set by considering any aggravating or mitigating factors of the offending with reference to the maximum penalties. The maximum sentence available for arson is 10 years imprisonment and complicity to arson carries the same penalty. There are no mitigating factors of the offending. I accept that there are a number of aggravating factors of the offending.
• There was an element of planning involved;
• The offending occurred at night;
• The full contents of the house were destroyed estimated to be VT 650,000
• The offending was unprovoked;
• The defendants left when the house was burning;
• The victim feared for his life and was only able to save himself but lost everything;
13. The prosecution referred to PP v Soulny [2024] VUSC 6 for comparison and submitted that that case is comparable to the current case. The defendant in that case lit dry coconut leaves and used it to burn down the victim’s house. The defendant knew that the house belonged to the victim. The house was burned to the ground with all its contents. Noting there were a number of aggravating factors, the Court set the starting point of sentence at 3 years imprisonment. The end sentence arrived at was 1 year 6 months imprisonment which was then suspended.
14. The prosecution submits that the starting point for each defendant be between 4 to 5 years imprisonment. Mr Bal on behalf of the defendants concedes the aggravating factors submitted by the prosecution and referred to a number of cases which the factual circumstances were different to the current case namely: PP v Ninisia [2021] VUSC 96 and PP v Sitangtang [2014] VUSC184 which involved the burning of more than one house. The case of PP v Jimmy [2012] VUCA 1 involved theft and the burning of a storage container.
15. The defendants submitted that comparable cases to the current case is Soulny referred to by the prosecution and PP v Tau [2018] VUSC 255 which involved the burning of one house made of local materials which had iron roofing. The starting point in that case was 3 years imprisonment reduced to an end sentence of 10 months imprisonment which was then suspended for a period of 10 months.
16. Mr Bal submitted that the appropriate starting point for both defendants should be 3 years imprisonment.
17. I have taken into account the above submissions. This case is far more serious than the cases of Tau and Soulny. The defendants in this case knew the victim was asleep inside the house and intended to burn the house with the victim inside. The victim was fortunate that he sensed the smell of fuel and spotted the fire in time and saved himself. That in itself warrants a higher starting point than 3 years to denounce the defendants’ conduct and deter them from such offending in future. I set the starting point of sentence for both defendants at 4 years imprisonment.
Personal factors
18. The defendants pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity as a sign remorse therefore the sentence start point is reduced by 33 %.
Max Womla
19. He is now 20 years old. He committed the offending when he was 19 years old. He is from Lehan village on Malekula and he is the youngest out of nine children. He is a first-time offender and completed his education at year 10. He has practical farming skills and is self-employed as a farmer and sustains his livelihood through gardening and earns his income through the production and sale of copra and cocoa. Taking these factors into account, I reduce his sentence starting point by 6 months.
20. Further counsel submits that the defendant was remand for two months which equates to 4 months imprisonments. A further 4 months is deducted from the sentence start point to reflect time spent in custody.
Robyn Womla
21. He is the fifth child out of 6 children in his family. He is now 25 years old and was 24 when he offended. He is a first-time offender. He left school at year 10 and did part time jobs as a construction worker. He earns his income by selling VT20 cooked food road markets and sells food crops at the market. His two bothers supplement their household income through their wages to support their expenses. Taking these factors into account, I reduce the sentence start point by 8 months.
End sentence
22. Max Womla is sentenced to an end sentence of 1 year 8 months imprisonment.
23. Robyn Womla is sentenced to an end sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
24. Counsels submits that I should suspend your sentences. I have considered the criteria for suspending a sentence under s57 of the Penal Code. You are both young adults in your twenties and this is your first offending. I also note the fact that although your offending is very serious, there was no loss of life. I will therefore suspend your sentences for a period of 2 years. Should you reoffend during the period of your suspended sentence, your sentences will be reactivated to be served in custody.
25. In addition, I also order each of you to perform 100 hours of community work.
26. You have 14 days to appeal if you are not satisfied with the decision.
DATED at Luganville, Santo this 18th day of September, 2026
BY THE COURT
………………………
Dudley Aru
Judge