State v Philip [1997] PGDC 4; DC13 (22 May 1997)

Unreported District Court Decisions

[1997] PNGDC 21 - STATE V HOHOA HOKSY PHILLIP

[1997] PNGDC 21

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CIR NO 1 65 OF 1996

THE STATE

V

HOHOA HOKSY PHILLIP

Waigani

Abisai SPM

22 May 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Breaking entering and stealing (dwelling house) - Stealing property valued at K407.00 - Co-operative first offender - Remorseful - Non custodial sentence appropriate.

Counsel

S/Sgt Leo Sale for the State

Mr Roger Otto for the Prisoner

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

22 May 1997

ABISAI SPM:  The defendant pleaded a guilty to one Count of Breaking and entering a dwelling house and there in stole a property Radio Stereo valued at K407.00 being the property of Rawali Nopite S 395 of CCA.

CHARGE

The offence of Breaking entering a dwelling house and stealing carries minimum of 2 years and maximum of 14 years goal in Grade five maximum 10 years.

BRIEF FACTS

That early on Saturday morning the 27th day of April 1996 between 1.00pm and 4 pm the defendant and his friend at Rouna No 1 Nogiri Road Central Province.

After the Bingo game went and sat down at a house owned by a Kerema man drinking and planning to break and enter in complainants house.

They had to force open the door by pushing it with their legs and pushed some stones in between the door and the wall but were unsuccessful. They then stood on a bet that was near the House and removed the agmash wire after that ripped of fly wire and removed three louver blades.

The prisoner climbed into the house through the window and removed the item and gave it to his friend and both walked away.

The owner of the later found out and reported the matter to the Police and a search was conducted and arrested the prisoner which he admitted he was then charged.

He was arrested cautioned charged and placed in the cell.

THE PRISONER

The prisoner is 18 years old unemployed resides with his family at Rouna No 1. He has a family of five 3 sisters and 1 brother he is 3rd born in the family prisoners both parents alive. He is a of united church member attended Waigani Community School Waigani completing grade 6 unable to make it to high school.

He was formerly employed by Works department Roads and Bridges as a labourer and not further employment was obtained.

SENTENCE

Prisoner in his allocutus apologise to the Court. He admit that it is wrong to break enter into a dwelling house and steal another person property. Prisoner stated that he is willing to pay back the property if it had gone missing.

The Defence Council Caspar on behalf of prisoner submit that the prisoner is a very young person and is the third person in the family and he has no previous conviction. He also co operated very well with the Police during the cause of investigations and during their record of interview and has pleaded guilty to this Court, the Court should considered for a suspended sentence with condition.

Senior Sergeant Leo Sale on behalf of State submit to this Court that with the Defence Council who is very co-operative with the Police during their investigation and accord of interview and also pleaded guilty to the Court saving Courts time even though the prisoner is very young an also co-operated with the Police. However the offence of breaking and entering is not the first kind, according to the Police statistics the rate of this particular has escalated look therefore prosecutor submit that the defendant be given custodial sentence to deter others from committing such offences in near future.

In considering what is appropriate sentence of this particular prisoner I took account of the following.

The prisoner is 1st offender with no previous convictions; his plea of guilty indicate his remorsefulness. His co-operation with the Police during course of investigation and record of interview and wasted no time of this count by pleading guilty to this very serious offence.

I agree with the prosecutor that the offence of this nature is very serious. The prisoner broke and entered dwelling house there in stole property I am sure that the owner of the property have suffered greatly in mentally realizing somebody has done such a thing.

If the prisoner is given custodial sentence it will not help to rehabilitate the prisoner  but hardened the prisoner the Court also taken into consideration the prisoner is the first offender with no previous conviction his remorseful he is willing to repay the money in full.

Having considering the factors in favour of the prisoner and the factors against him. This Court feels that custodial sentence is regarded not appropriate section 19 of CCA. Furthermore there is no evidence indicating that the prisoner may repeat this kind of offence again.

I therefore sentence the prisoner to 10 months in hard labour Correctional Institutions Bomana.  I order that:

2 months spent in custody be deducted in acceptance with Section 3 (2) and section 4 of the Criminal Justice sentence Act 1986. I further order deduct 1 month for his plea guilty. Balance of 7 months be wholly suspended on the prisoner entering into his own recognizance on the following conditions:

N2>(1)      The prisoner enter into his own recognizance with K100.00 cash surety to pay forthwith; and

N2>(2)      Promise to keep the peace and good behaviour for 10 months commencing 22nd May, 1997.

N2>(3)      The prisoners bail sum of K100.00 be converted to surety.

N2>(4)      In any of the above recognizance are not complied with the prisoner to be brought back to this Court to be dealt with accordingly.

Lawyer for the State: Police Prosecutions.

Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor.