State v Luemifa [2007] PGDC 34; DC519 (14 May 2007)

DC519

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

DCCr 465 OF 2007

BETWEEN

STATE

AND

SOLOMON LUEMIFA
Defendant

Goroka: F Manue
2007: May 03, 14

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Section 12 (1) of the Summary Offences Act
Section 65 A of the Firearms Act
Section 52 of the Constitution

Counsel
For the Prosecution – Sergeant Warkia, Goroka Police Station
For the Defendant – In Person

14 May 2007

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

F Manue: The defendant was charged on two counts of simples offences. First count is that that on the 27 of April 2007 he had in his possession an offensive weapon, a home made pistol without reasonable excuse. Thereby contravening Section 12 (1) of the Summary Offences Act.

2. The second count is that on the same date the defendant did have in his possession a live ammunition, a .22 bullet without being a holder of an ammunition dealers licence. Thereby contrary to Section 65 A of the Firearms Act.

3. The defendant has pleaded guilty to both charges on the 3 day of May 2007 and decision on penalty was adjourned to 14 of May 2007, which I do now.

4. The facts and circumstances in which the offences were committed are the same in both cases.

5. The summary of facts are that on that date the defendant was among his tribesmen in Goroka town. They were all fully armed with weapons such as bush knives, home made and factory made guns. They had brutally attacked and killed an enemy tribesman and his son and were returning to Seigu, a bus stop to Bena Bena people where the defendant comes from.

6. Police confronted the tribesmen and caught the defendant with one other tribesmen of his. In the defendants possession was the home-made pistol and loaded in it was the .22 bullet.

7. There was no explanation to the policemen as to why the items in issue were in the defendants possession.

8. So far as the explanation of why he possessed the item goes, he explained in Court that after the attack and killing of his enemy, he carried them to Seigu for his own safety.

9. That explanation to me is not logical. It is not logical because he does not explain how is it that they ended up in his possession and why he had them.

10. The only logical conclusion we can arrive at in the given situation and circumstances was that he had himself armed for the purpose of giving vengeance on his enemy tribesmen.

11. That is logical, because he was among his tribesmen when they attacked and killed their enemy and his son at the Goroka main market place.

12. In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I have taken into consideration that he is a young and first offender. He has had no prior bad records with the police. These instigation factors, however must be out weight by the given facts, as aggravating factors.

13. Both these offences are prevalent. The excuse of possessing offensive weapons for one’s safety is also a common excuse. This type of excuse goes to show that there is no guarantee for a safe society. No one trust anyone and everyone is in fear of being either attacked or harmed. This results in people arming themselves with weapons and carrying them around. If such excuses are allowed, then it becomes very risky for the vulnerable and weak members of society, particularly women and children.

14. Section 12 (1) offence under the Summary Offences Act, is intended to strike a balance. Where there is a reasonable excuse offered, then it is obviously a defence. On the contrary where such reasonable excuses are not offered then it becomes unlawful.

15. Home made pistols and bullets are not intended to be carried ground for one’s safety, unless it is legitimately lawful.

16. In the recent times, the town has seen an influx of people carrying all manner of offensive weapons. Such behaviour restricts peoples constitutional rights of freedom of movement under Section 52 of the Constitution. Where the constitution is being attacked then it must be protected so that people enjoy what is rightfully and lawfully theirs. I am very mindful that given the whole circumstances under which the offences were committed, it is a very serious matter. Two lives were lost. Although there is no direct evidence to suggest that he was directly involved, such behaviour is uncalled for.

17. The penalty must reflect a deterrence effect not only to the defendant but to warring tribesman and general public not to take tribal war fare into towns.

18. Towns are suppose to be neutral grounds where everyone, regardless of race and religion, etc should be free to do business. A town is where the state provides services and as such anyone should feel free to receive those benefits, without fear or intimidation.

19. Section 12 of Summary Offences Act carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding K2, 000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

20. For the offence of carrying an offensive weapon. I consider a custodial sentence of three (3) years appropriate.

21. For the offence of possessing a bullet without an ammunition dealers licence I consider custodial sentence of 12 months as appropriate and that the sentences be served concurrently.

22. Orders and sentence accordingly.

For the Prosecution – Sergeant Warkia, Goroka Police Station
For the Defendant – In Person