Mulo v Wambou [2009] PGDC 34; DC914 (20 May 2009)

DC914

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CIR NO: 88-92 of 2009

BETWEEN

Brian MULO
(Police Informant)

V

David Wambou and 4 Others
(Defendants)

AITAPE: M.Samala
2009: 20 May

CRIMINAL LAW– Fighting, Defendants each and several pleaded guilty to fighting- All are villagers, first time offenders, circumstances of fighting not so serious, sentence, fine with default penalty.

CASE CITED:
No case

REFERENCE:
Section 10 (a) of Summary Offences Act, Ch.264

John Bidau for Informant
Defendants each and severally appearing in persons

20 May 2009

M. Samala: Defendants each and severally pleaded guilty to the charge of fighting, offence contravening section 10 (a) of Summary Offences Act, Chapter 264.

2. FACTS

On the 15 January 2009, the defendants all from Yaini Village grouped themselves and fought with Vokau villagers over Land and timber royalty money. The fight started over royalty paid to Yaini and Yaini destroying sago sucker planted by Vokau that day on disputed interest.

3. The fighting was much with use of fists, although both parties were armed with weapons but chose a fist fight causing just minor destructions to a house. They know themselves and that all are simple villagers.

4. CONSIDERATION

This is group fighting prohibited by section 10 of the Summary Offences Act involving adult persons who chose to take the law unto themselves and fight and they fought. The fighting in this case is about timber royalty money with related land issue increasing the manner of violence in communities not experienced before, though defendants are all simple villagers, first time offenders. The Court in such case has the duty to impose appropriate punishment to prevent such offence from re-occurring in future for purposes of maintaining peace and for protection of innocent harm, loss of lives and properties.

5. Having read through the summary of facts, I accepted defendant’s guilty pleas as pleas properly entered with their further statement in allocutus supported the guilty pleas satisfying the elements of the offence. In allocutus, each defendant stated they took part in the fight that day, that there were two fights occurring several hours apart and they were involved in both and are sorry that they did such.

6. Defendants have asked for the leniency of the Court, stating they are sorry, the fight was simple, just a fist fight involving both parties only. In this case, I am satisfied the fighting was not serious, no injuries were reported, no properties were destroyed except for just a house and so, am reluctant to impose heavy penalties as all the defendants pleaded guilty and are simple villagers with guilty pleas taken in their favour.

7. SENTENCE

Considering the admissions, as defendants all admitted the charge making it easy for the court, although the offence of fighting is quite serious as seen by Parliament with penalty of fine up to K600.00 and gaol term not exceeding three years. I am of the view, severe penalty be reserved for the worse and extreme fighting cases to make people to deter and make offenders abide by the rules of law in settling disputes and grievances and not to take the law into their own hands.

8. All defendants here are simple villagers, unemployed and have co-operated with the police after fighting, they all have pleaded guilty with fighting not so serious simply a fist fight and so, I consider imposing a lesser sentence by fine of K100.00 with default five month imprisonment term be sufficient for each and severally.

9. Having say this, with reasons stated above, accordingly, defendants each are convicted and fined a sum of K100.00 each to be paid forthwith in default each be sentenced to five months in hard labour at Vanimo Correction Service

______________________________