Police v Peter [2016] PGDC 3; DC2073 (16 August 2016)

DC2073

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE SITTING IN ITS

CRIMINAL SUMMARY JURISDICTION

B NO.3434-3435 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

POLICE

-Informant-

AND:

EVA PETER

PAUL AUGUSTINE

- Defendants-

Boroko - NCD: A. Kalandi

2016: 16^thAugust 2016

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW – Summary Offence – Dangerous Drugs Act,Part II, Control of Dangerous Drugs, Section 3(1)(d)Production of Dangerous Drugs.

Possession of dangerous drug without authorization - Offence is punishable on summary conviction

Counsel: S/Constable Singamot– Police Prosecution

Mr. Eva Peter &Mr. Paul Augustine – In Person

Laws:

1. Dangerous Drugs Act, Section 3(3) (d)

Cases cited
Nil

KALANDI. A. DCM: The offenders were jointly charged for one countof unlawfully being in possession of dangerous drugs, marijuana contrary to Section 3(1)(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The offenders were aligned and theyboth pleaded guilty to the charge and as a result, submission on sentence was made and this is the Court’s Ruling on sentence.

POLICE BRIEF

The Police alleged that the offenders, Eva Peter and Paul Augustine on the 26^thJune 2016, at around 12.00pm noon at Talai/Gobe Market, Badilli, National Capital District, knowingly had in their possession a dangerous drug, marijuana, one (1) roll without authority. The offenders were sitting under a tree and having turns in smoking and exchanging the roll of marijuana at the specified location when the police spotted them.

ISSUES

The issue for the Court to determine is the appropriate penalty for the offenders

SUBMISSIONS

The Prosecution submitted that the penalty for offences for knowingly being in possession of drugs is provided for by Section 3(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. It was submitted that the offence called for a maximum penalty and that the maximum penalty is imposed on the offender. It was further submitted that drug related offences is very serious and prevalent as many youths, men and women are affected by it. It was also submitted that the maximum penalty should be imposed to deter the public and to protect future commission of the similar offence. Thus, submitted for a custodial sentence.

The offender Eva Peter submitted that they did not sell the marijuana but they were smoking it themselves. He submitted and asked for good behaviour as he will not do it again.

The offender Paul Augustine submitted he doesn’t sell marijuana, but he only smokes it. He said, the marijuana roll they were alleged of was not for sale, but bought it to smoke it. He also submitted for good behaviour and said he will not do it again.

APPLICATION OF LAW

The penalty prescribed by Section 3(2)) of the Dangerous Drugs Act for offences committed under Section 3(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) whereby a person knowingly cultivates a plant for drug, makes a dangerous drug, exports a dangerous drug , is in possession and or conveys drugs imposes a penalty sentence term not less than three months and not more than two years, the maximum is the penalty for imprisonment term and not a fine.

For purposes of this ruling, the relevant section is set out hereunder;
Section 3 Production, etc., of Dangerous Drugs.

(1) A person who knowingly–

(a) cultivates a plant from which a dangerous drug can be made; or

(b) makes a dangerous drug; or

(c) exports a dangerous drug; or

(d) is in possession of or conveys a dangerous drug or a plant or part of a plant from which a dangerous drug can be made,

is guilty of an offence unless he is authorized to do so by or under some other Act.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term of not less than three months and not exceeding two years.

(2) An offence against Subsection (1) is punishable on summary conviction.

The prosecution correctly submitted that offences involving drugs was a serious offence thus being prevalent. The selling of drugs to other citizens and the consumption of drugs extremely affects themselves as consumers, their families and their usefulness of being a citizen of the country is compromised to an illegal stand. It not only affects them, but it also affects other people who falls victims and as a result many other problems and issues related to drug dealings arises. It affects many youths, education is unpredictable, discomfort in family lives, mothers and children are displaced with no one to care for them. This offence is very prevalent and relevant authorities including the Court need to seriously look for ways to deter this offence.

Though the quantity of the drug the offenders were smoking was only a single roll, the vest effect on them was unimaginable and never understood. The offenders were of the perception that offences in relation to being in possession of this dangerous drug for consumption do not create an offence and so they submitted that they had the drug for their own consumption. One being in possession of the drug whether it is for consumption or for other purposes without authority constitutes an offence.

The act of the offenders being in possession of the drug, a roll is the factor aggravating in itself. The offence being a prevalent one and the seriousness of the drug offence are also contributing factors in aggravation. The mitigating factors for the benefit of the offenders other than the benefit of their guilty plea are, both are first time offenders.

There is no balance on the aggravating factors as to the mitigating factors though the offenders are first time offenders and the benefit of their guilty plea.

ALLOCUTUS ADMINISTERED

Allocutus was administered by explaining to the offenders its purpose, but the offenders had nothing to say.

ANTECEDENT REPORT

The Antecedent Report asserts that the offender, Eva Peter is a male of 23 years of age, unemployed, married with two children and resides at the Talai Settlement in the National Capital District. He is from Kainantu, Eastern Highlands Provinces and has no prior convictions.

The offender Paul Augustine is 25 years of age, married with one child, unemployed and resides at the Gobe Settlement. He hails from the Yare village, Baimuru District, Gulf Province and has no prior convictions.

SENTENCE

The Court is now placed at s position to consider the appropriate penalty to the offenders of the offence. The appropriate penalty would be imposed in consideration of the considerations mentioned above. The section that creates the offence also set out the penalty provision, which is a penalty for imprisonment for a term not less than three months and not exceeding two years.

The penalty does not accommodate room for the court’s discretion on the type of penalty to be imposed, but there is wide discretion of this Court to consider the appropriate term of imprisonment in consideration of the factors alluded earlier. The offenders’ submission for good behaviour is not considered as there is not room for same by the provision that created the penalty. Thus, I consider a sentence term of four months imprisonment for both offenders with pre-trial period to be deducted pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentence) Act.

COURT ORDER

1. The offenders are convicted to each serve a custodial sentence of four (04) months in HL at the Bomana Correctional Institute.
2. The pre-trial period of three weeks and one day to be deducted.
3. The offenders to serve the balance of three months and six days in HL.
   

Police – Prosecution

Defendants – In Person