State v Lakewa [2015] PGDC 12; DC3011 (6 May 2015)

DC3011

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the District Court of Justice sitting in its criminal Jurisdiction]

CR No 106 of 2015

BETWEEN

STATE

V

SEBASTINE LAKEWA
(Defendant)

BUKA: B.TASIKUL
06^th May, 2015

CRIMINAL LAW:

CASES CITED:

REFERENCE:
Nil

Appearing for the defendants: In person
Appearing for the Prosecution: Mrs. Cecila Takela Police prosecution

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1. BTASIKUL: The defendant Sebastine Lakewa of Paruparu Village, Kieta District, Autonomous Region of Bougainville stands charged for breaching his shop keeper’s license. Contravening section 65(f) of the Bougainville Interim Provincial Government Liquor Control Act, 2001.
   
2. Section 65 (f) of the Bougainville Interim Provincial Government Liquor Control Act,2001 states, A licensee who keeps his licensed premises open for the sale or disposal of liquor at any time except during permitted hours, is guilty of an offence.
   
3. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge.
   
4. The statement which he pleaded guilty to as follows; On the 21^st March,2015 between 5.00 -6.00 am a police motorist patrol sighted a person carry a plastic of green can beer. He was stop by police and questioned him where he bought the beer from. That person directed them to the store keeper. The defendant was question and admitted selling the beer.
   
5. After confirming the defendant guilty of the charge, I found that the defendant is only an employee and not a licensee. A licensee by definition under the current Act means the holder of a current license.
   
6. This now brings me the question; Whether or not the court has the powers to vacate or side a side the guilty plea?
   
7. The Constitution requires that offences must be defined and penalties must be prescribed by a written law.S.37 (2) of the Constitution. It means two things; firstly no common law or unwritten law offence is recognized in our jurisdiction, except contempt of court. Secondly, it is not a question of morals or beliefs, or nor even a question of whether an act is good or bad, or fair or unfair. The only question is whether the act is legal/lawful or illegal/unlawful.
   
8. In this present case it is very clear that the defendant is only an employee. He is not a holder of the liquor license; therefore he cannot be charge under section 65(f) of the Bougainville Interim Provincial Government Liquor Control Act, 2001.
   
9. It would be improper for the defendant to be charge under this provision which does not specify or include him as a licensee.
   
10. Where a defendant is not represented by lawyers it is the duty of the court to make sure that people charges must understand the laws and what laws that they are charge with. Many citizens don’t understand their constitutional rights and the courts are there to protect them.
    
11. In the case of Gabriel Laku v The State [1981] PNGLR 350, the Supreme Court states that leave to withdraw a plea of guilty after conviction is a discretionary matter. Once a clear plea of guilty has been entered and the court proceeds to consider sentence, the prisoner is regarded as having been convicted and is it wholly a matter of the court discretion as to whether the conviction should be set aside and the plea of guilty vacated.
    
12. In apply this principle of law I am of the view that because the charge in its self-defective and not relevant to the defendant I withdraw this information and ordered the defendant bail be refunded. I further ordered that all liquors that been confiscate by police should return to the defendant after two weeks if no other charges be laid against the defendant or the licensee.