State v Stephenson [2017] PGDC 58; DC4088 (11 May 2017)

DC4088

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL (GRADE 5 COURT) JURISDICTION]

GFC: 30 of 2016

BETWEEN

State

Informant

AND

Kimberly Stephenson

Defendant

KOKOPO: SLavutul

2016: 02^nd, 19^th August, 29^th September, 04^th, 18^th October, 10^th, 20^th,
29^th November, 08^th, 13th, 20^th December,
2017: 14^th, 28^th February, 07^th, 30^th March, 13^th, 21^st April, 02^nd May

CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Dangerous Driving Causing Death- Section 328 (2) (5) CCA – Plea of Guilty- Submissions on Sentence – Criminal Responsibility falls between heedlessness and recklessness.Sentence – matters for consideration, Mitigating factors – first offender – Guilty plea- Cooperated with Police- failure to consider other road users –-compensation as mitigating factor – criminal liability is not excused by compensation – custodial sentence where life is lost.

Cases Cited
The State –v- Sabarina Yakal [1988-89] PNGLR 129
Karo Gamoga- v- The State [1981] PNGLR 443
Goli Golu –v- The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Elipa Kalabus –v- The State [1988] PNGLR 193
The State –v- Betty Kondai, CR553 of 2000 (Unreported Case)
The State –v- John Peter Kot N2027 CR559 of 2000(Unreported)
The State –v- Elias Subang (2) [1976] PNGLR179

The State –V- Jim Jobaga Ilivitaro [1977] PNGLR 249.

References

Criminal Code Act

Counsel

Sgt Elizabeth Munap for Prosecution.

Mr. Robert Asafor the Defendant.

Sentencing

11^th May 2017

SLavutul. PM. The defendant Kimberly Stephenson was charged under Section 328 (2) (5) of the Criminal Code Act for Dangerous Driving Causing Death. It was alleged the defendant did on the 06th of January 2016 along William’s road Kokopo, East New Britain province; Papua New Guinea drove a motor vehicle to wit a Subaru Sedan, registration number RA1.18 8 dangerously and thereby caused the death of one namely, Mary Waninara, contravening Section 328 (5) (2) of the Criminal Code.

Facts

2. It was alleged that on Wednesday 06^th day of January 2016 the defendant now before the court was seen driving a Subaru Station Wagon Registration No. 881 along Williams Road, Kokopo Town. As the defendant passed the RENB Roundabout; she headed onto the long straight section of the road towards the Ralum Police Headquarters. Upon reaching the Ralum Police Headquarters she ran off the road and hit the deceased Mary Waninara who was walking with her youngest son namely John Waninara on the left side of the road along the footpath.

3. As the defendant’s vehicle ran off the road it continued onto the footpath and hit the elderly woman on the footpath and took her back onto the parking bay on the left side of the road where she fell off killing her instantly.

Plea

4. The defendant did on the 13th of May 2016, after the charge was put to her entered a plea of guilty. However she gave her excuse that she was trying to avoid a pothole onthe road and she caused the death of the deceased. The defendant totally agreed with the content of the statement of facts except that her counsel Mr. Robert Asa raised the issue that phrase in the 03^rd paragraph of the statement of facts is not where it states, “Upon leaving the RENB Roundabout and heading onto the long straight section of the road to the Ralum Police Headquarters, the defendant dozed off causing the vehicle to run off the road”.Mr. Asa also contested the statement of facts was not done by the police but by one of the SAS Security Supervisor. A voir dire was run and it was proven the statement of fact was not done by the police. Defence Counsel did not raise any contention over the content of hand up briefs containing witnesses’ statements, the post mortem report, the mechanical report by National Works Department, Kokopo Branch regarding the mechanical condition of the defendant’s vehicle and photographs of the crime scene and the defendant’s Record of Interview.

Verdict

5. Charge was proven plea and defendant was found to be guilty as charged.

Antecedent

6. The defendant Kimberly Stephenson is from Hula Central province, is 23 years old, single, unemployed and without prior convictions.

Address on Sentence

Defence

7. The defence counsel submitted the defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge of dangerous driving causing death under Section 328 (2) (5) of the Criminal Code Act. Counsel urges the court the defendant relies on her affidavit sworn on 27^th of February 2017;

A. That the court considers the following Mitigating Factors;

1. The defendant is 23 years old female, single and resident of Kokopo, New Britain Province

2. She is a first time offender and this is her first time to come to court, she has no prior conviction

3. Most importantly she pleaded guilty to the charge which has saved lot of time and energy and resources for the court and police. Avoidance of a lengthy trial.

4. The defendant cooperated fully with the Police Investigations making their job easier.

5. The defendant has apologized to the court and police for taking up their time.

6. The defendant has apologized and expressed genuine remorse to the victims’ relatives by paying compensation in cash and kind totaling more than K16, 500.00. Attending to funeral expenses and haus karai as well as sending the relatives to attend funeral and burial service. Defendant’s relatives have been assisting the victim’s relatives from the time of the accident up to the time of burial.

7. Defendant was not drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the accident

8. Was not speeding or driving beyond the legal limit of 60 kmph in town

9. Due to the incident and court case the defendant had ceased employment

10. The defendant has been traumatized by the accident and has gone through a lot of stress, anxiety and mental pain. This has also been felt by her immediate family.

11. The accident occurred because the defendant tried to avoid a huge pothole which was on her left side.

12. At the relevant time the defendant had a valid driving license and the vehicle was registered and road worthy.

13. Deceased was 72 year old woman/grandmother, advanced age and had reached the prime of her life

14. No death or injuries caused to any other person apart from the deceased.

15. The defendant was in police custody or cell for 8 days and nights

16. Has not been driving since the accident

B. Some Aggravating Circumstances

1. Precious life cut short by the accident. Cannot be brought back to life

2. Pain and suffering caused to relatives

C. Sentencing principles;

1. Each case must be decided on its own merits based on its own factual circumstances

2. Deterrence– sentence to deter others from committing similar offences

3. Prevalence of Crime – Taking into account community expectations.

4. The Supreme Court said in Goli Golu –v- The State [1979] PNGLR 653 that the maximum penalty should be reserved for the worst type of cases in terms of the facts and circumstances leading up to, during and following the crime.

5. This court may also suspend part of or the entire sentence with or without conditions. This is authorized under Section 19 of the Criminal Code. This section of the Criminal Code provides among others, shorter term maybe, imposed [subsection (1) (a)], a fine not exceeding K2000.00 in addition to, or instead of, imprisonment maybe imposed [subsection (1) (b)], a good behavior bond in addition to, or instead of , imprisonment maybe imposed [subsection (1) (d)], the offender can be discharged and the sentence be postponed [subsection (1) (f)] or part of or all of the sentence can be suspended subject to conditions [subsection (6)].

6. The court also has the power to make orders to disqualify the offender from holding or obtaining a driver’s license either absolute or for a specified period of time (see section 330 (2) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

7. There are numerous cases on dangerous driving causing death under s.328 (2) and (5) of the Criminal Code which have come before the court. Sentences have ranged from suspended sentences to custodial terms. This offence may warrant a punitive and deterrent sentence even where the offender is a first time offender. The principle is well established in Public Prosecutor –v- Will Moke Soki [1977]PNGLR 165; Public Prosecutor –v- Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294 and State –v-Alphonse Raphael [1979] PNGLR 47. However, judicial discretion in relation to sentences is not removed to the extent that a sentence of imprisonment is mandatory in every case of dangerous driving causing death as in (Karo Gamoga –v – State [1981] PNGLR 443

8. In the case of State –v- Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294 accused pleaded guilty to the charge of Dangerous Driving Causing Death of his wife and son who were in the vehicle with him. At the time of the accident he was under the influence of alcohol. The National Court placed him on two years own recognizance. The Supreme Court, in upholding the appeal by the public prosecutor against inadequacy of sentence held that “In dangerous driving causing death only in most exceptional cases that imprisonment should not be imposed”. The Supreme Court substituted the sentence to eight months imprisonment. The Supreme Court did not state what the exceptional cases would be.

9. In Soki –v- Public Prosecutor [1977] PNGLR 165, the Supreme Court stated;

“For the offence of dangerous driving causing death, whilst appreciating that the causation of death should not be allowed to convert into dangerous driving” behavior which would not otherwise rank as such, the seriousness of the outcome (the number of deaths resulting) may be looked at as one of the relevant features in assessing what sentence is required to act as a private and public deterrent, and to assure public conscience that the law in the prevailing state of the community existing in Papua New Guinea will demonstrate an element of retribution”.

10. Ondu’s lawyer relied on this court’s decision in The State –v- Albert Yaro (2010) where the offender pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing death. The offender was the driver employed by Mendi General Hospital and it was during one of the hospital’s emergency run to Mt. Hagen that the offender hit a young boy along the Okuk Highway who was confirmed dead on arrival at the hospital.

The offender pleaded guilty and considering the mitigating factors, the court sentenced him to 1 year 6 months imprisonment which was wholly suspended with conditions.

11. N3579 – James Warep v The State (2009) N3579.

Whilst these are some of the dangerous driving causing death cases, there are some features common in either case. Some examples are: the driver of the motor vehicle driving at excessive speed; over loaded with passengers; driving under the influence of alcohol; driving without license or expired license; driving a mechanically defective motor vehicle etc....In this case driver of a PMV truck overturned on a dangerous section of the highway or mountain when he drove at a speed. Many passengers sustained serious injuries including, back, head and spinal which would affect them for life. A 12 month imprisonment was suspended on appeal. The circumstances in this case is quite different

12. One National Court case is – The State –v- Philip Iparu (2005) N2995, where His Honor Kandakasi J, sentenced the offender to 3 years imprisonment in hard labour after the offender pleaded guilty to the charge of dangerous causing death. The offender was drunk and he ran off the road at Wara Lai near Wapenamanda in the Enga Province where four passengers sitting at the back trail of the truck thrown off and fell onto big rocks in the river. They sustained severe head injuries and died instantly.

13. In N3539 – Francis Tarei –v-The State (2008) N3539 case, Cannings J confirmed a 2 years custodial sentence on appeal where the offender was driving under the influence of alcohol and was out all night at San Remo Club and drove to look for cigarette and drove straight to a pedestrian killing the expatriate. He was sentenced to two years custodial sentence after a long trial. He appealed and his appeal was rejected because of existence of aggravation especially driving under the influence of liquor after a night out as well as failing to negotiate a bend.

14. In unreported case of N726 – The State –v- Aina Uwantuna (1989) N726, The offender was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment in hard labour for dangerous driving causing death of 12 passengers on a public motor vehicle. The offender drove a large Fuso onto the wrong lane and collided head on with a PMV bus resulting in 12 deaths and other injuries. The Court found his driving to be reckless having regard to the highway and amount of traffic on the road at Aviamp in Mt. Hagen along the Highlands highway.

15. A quick observation of the above and other cases on point suggest that where there is existence of serious aggravating factors such as;

➢ driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs
➢ driving while overloaded with passengers
➢ speeding or excessive speed on dangerous section of the road.
➢ Driving without a license or expired license
➢ Driving a mechanically defective vehicle
➢ Reckless or heedless driving without paying attention to road/traffic signs causing fatal accident
➢ Carrying passengers for reward on motor vehicle not licensed to carry passengers for reward
➢ Number of injuries
➢ Death or injuries
➢ Death or injuries occurring by unlawful use of motor vehicle in case of robbery or where vehicle used without consent of owner, custodial sentence should be imposed
➢ Injury or death cause to young person who has more years ahead than an old person who lived through most of years. Imprisonment term imposed.

These are worse scenarios where there is one or more of these aggravating factors present, custodial sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more have been imposed

D. Submission

Counsel submitted in the present case we respectfully submit the court has discretion to decide on the appropriate case which should be determined on the facts and merit. None of the serious aggravating factors listed are present in this case and that the accident happened because the offender tried to negotiate a pothole on her left side of the road and bumped the victim. It was a genuine accident.

Counsel reiterated custodial sentence is meant for dangerous and hardened criminals and persons who require punishment and rehabilitation

Counsel added presently the CS Kerevat has been filled to capacity and lack adequate supplies and appealed for imprisonment to be only given to serious crimes involving persons who are dangerous to the community should incarcerated

Furthermore counsel submits there are more mitigating factors in favour of the defendant as stated in paragraph A, which the court should take into consideration in granting a non – custodial sentence or suspended sentence.

Counsel added in their respectful submission a wholly suspended sentence and fine or one year suspension of driving license is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Prosecution

8. Prosecution likewise sets out both the mitigating factor factors and aggravating factors in this case for consideration in the following;

Mitigating factors

(a) Defendant is a first offender
(b) Defendant pleaded guilty on arraignment
(c) Defendant cooperated with police

Aggravating factors

(a) High speed
(b) Failure to keep proper look out for other road users
(c) Caused the death of another person
(d) Prevalence offence

Submission

Prosecution submits the penalty provision under Section 328 (2) (5) of the Criminal Code Act for the offence of Dangerous Driving Causing Death indicates the offence is a serious and prevalent offence.

Prosecution argued they have taken into account the fact that the defendant cooperated well with the police during the course of the investigation, pleaded guilty on arraignment and that she is a first offender, however the court must also consider the serious nature of the offence in that a human life was lost unnecessarily as a result of the accused negligence.

Prosecution further reiterated the deceased Mary Waninara was walking along the footpath situated about 3.5 meters away from the parking bay and about 4 meters from the outside lane when she was hit by the defendant who said in her pleading she was trying to avoid a pothole on her leftside of the outer lane of the road. Prosecution added according to the sketch plan on page No. 42 and photograph on page # 43, there are no pot holes on the surface of the road. The same photograph also shows that the vehicle driven by the defendant ran off the outside lane some 5 to 6 meters across the parking bay then onto the footpath to the point of impact. From the point of impact, the vehicle dragged the deceased for about 18 meters along the footpath before it went back to the parking bay then dropped the body of the deceased about a meter in.

Prosecution further clarified the width of the inbound double lane to Kokopo from Rabaul way is about 5.7 meters and 2.2 meters from the edge of the outside lane to the side of the footpath as per the sketch map.

Prosecution again reiterated the defendant in response to Question 19 in the Record of Interview dated 30^th of September 2016, reads;

“Q.19: Yu tok accident ibin kamap, how na accident ibin kamap?”

“Ans: Mi bin ron i kam lo taon na long police headquarters ibin gat pot hole long outside lane na mi laik avoidim pothole long leftside blong mi na em wok wokabaut i kam so mi hitim em”

Furthermore in her statement on page # 50 dated 06^th of January 2016 the defendant stated that she saw the deceased and a young girl walking along the leftside of the road, and then she blacked out and only got her senses after she heard a noise in the front of her car.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving causing the death of the deceased and the particulars of dangerous driving are as follows;

1. High Speed
2. Failure to keep a look out for other road users

Prosecution further clarified and argued; the distance from where the defendant’s vehicle ran off the road to the point of impact then to the final resting place of the deceased was about 30 meters; the damage to the vehicle and the extent of the injuries sustained by the deceased clearly shows that the defendant was travelling at high speed. Despite having seen the deceased and the child walking along the footpath, she saw fit to avoid the so called pothole without considering the safety of the other road users. This was an act of recklessness and not heedlessness.

Prosecution submits the distinction between heedlessness and recklessness basically involves circumstances of aggravation which characterizes the more serious breaches of the section (such as high speed, intoxication, overtaking in the face of oncoming vehicle, cutting corners and other such examples of recklessness involves in deliberately taking unjustifiable risks) on the other hand as per the view in the case; Karo Gamoga v The State [1981] PNGLR 443

Prosecution moreover submits the defendant said in her statement saw the deceased and a little girl prior to the impact, however, being in charge of a dangerous thing which is the vehicle pursuant to Section 287 of the Criminal Code she failed to keep proper look out for other road users. Being a driver she has a duty of care when driving to ensure that the safety of other road users is protected at all times.

Section 287, stipulates; DUTY OF PERSONS IN CHARGE OF DANGEROUS THINGS.

(1) It is the duty of every person who has in his charge or under his control any thing, whether living or inanimate, and whether moving or stationary, of such a nature that in the absence of care or precaution in its use or management the life, safety or health of any person may be endangered, to use reasonable care and take reasonable precautions to avoid that danger.

(2) A person on whom a duty is imposed by Subsection (1) shall be deemed to have caused any consequences that result to the life or health of any person by reason of any omission to perform that duty.

Prosecution submits under this provision a motor vehicle is classified as a dangerous thing and therefore drivers taking charge of motor vehicles must ensure that the safety of passengers including other people who could be expected to be using the road must be protected at all times.

Finally a prosecution also submits that whilst sentencing the defendant should also consider compensation pursuant to Section 2 (1) of the Criminal Law (Compensation) Act, 1991. Prosecution concluded in submitting that a deterrent sentence is one appropriate in this case and that is to deter not only the accused in the present case but others as well and a custodial sentence is one appropriate in this matter.

Deliberations on Sentence
9. I have given careful consideration to both submissions and the facts laid before me. Having read and considered both submissions I am left with the question, “What is the appropriate sentence to be given to the defendant?”So from the outset there is authority for the use of depositions to extract the relevant facts for sentencing purposes as per the view in The State –v- Sabarina Yakal [1988-89] PNGLR 129

10. The maximum penalty for Dangerous Driving Causing Death pursuant to section 328 (5) is 5 years, however, this is subject to section 19 of the Criminal Code Act for the court not to impose the maximum penalty but reserve it for the worse type of case; as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Goli Golu –v- The State [1979] PNGLR 653

11. Firstly, in the matter before me the defendant is 23 years old, a first offender, single and currently unemployed after the accident. She pleaded guilty to the charge however gave the excuse that she was trying to avoid a pothole on the lane she was travelling on to her left thus hitting the deceased. She also paid a substantial amount in cash and kind to the sum of K16, 500 to the relatives of the deceased for the haus karai and funeral, which was confirmed by the 01^st born son of the deceased namely Liligau Waninara.

12. Compensation payment in cash and kind prior to any court proceedings is an earlier expression of remorse immediately after the event as per the view in John Elipa Kalabus –v- The State [1988] PNGLR 193. However compensation payment cannot replace or bring back a life which was lost as a direct result of the defendant’s action. In the cases of The State –v- Betty Kondai, CR553 of 2000 (Unreported Case) and the State –v- John Peter Kot N2027 CR559 of 2000 (Unreported); Injia J in the former case and Justice Gavera Nanu in the latter case held that any form of crime where life is lost no amount of compensation could restore life and custodial sentences were imposed despite huge amount of compensation were paid.

13. With the assistance of counsel the court understands the defendant and her family did payments in cash and kind to the relatives of the deceased; what they did is not only as a token of saying sorry but also to at least give some comfort to the family of the deceased that the defendant was responsible for the death of their mother and relative. And in so doing the acceptance of the assistance by the family of the deceased in cash and kind was also in my view their undertaking and guarantee to the defendant and her family for their safety and wellbeing.

14. Secondly, I accept the aggravating factors set out for consideration by Prosecution in their submission that is, travelling at high speed, failed to keep proper look out for other road users, caused the death of another person and that the offence of dangerous driving causing death is a prevalent offence.

15. The defendant contended that she was attempting to avoid a pothole on the left lane she was travelling on to her left and hit the deceased. The court then visited the scene of the accident on 07^th of March 2017. The first attempt was with the presence of the Investigator Otto Vue, the Police Forensic Officer In charge, Saint Luke Maibogu who took the photographs and did the sketch plan immediately after the accident on the 06^th of January 2016, Counsel for the defendant, defendant and prosecutor.

16. However counsel and the defendant openly disputed the police Informant on the exact spot where the accident had occurred by insisting that the accident occurred just before the roundabout directly next to the proposed court location at Ralum about 30 to 50 meters away from where the alleged accident had taken place. Based on this disagreements the court insisted to have the deceased’s son namely John Waninara who was in the company of his mother at the time of the accident to be called in order to confirm where the accident actually took place.

17. Mr. John Waninara was called on the 08^th of March 2017 in the presence of the defendant, her counsel, Police Informant, Prosecutor, and OIC Forensic Mr. Saint Luke Maibogu including other relatives of the deceased; showed and confirmed to the court that the accident occurred in front of the Ralum Police Headquarters and not as claimed by the defendant and counsel. There were no further objections by counsel and the defendant, thus the court accepted that the accident occurred directly in front of the Ralum Police Headquarters as confirmed by John Waninara including the photographs contained in the hand up brief.

18. Now from the dispute over which was the exact scene of the accident by the defendant raises the issue whether she was in her right state of mind prior to and at the time of the accident; how could she easily forgot where the accident occurred and did she at least sometime after the accident revisited the accident scene as it has been over a year since the accident.

19. I also noted during the inspection of the crime scene there were no potholes or evidence of resealing or patching of potholes if any where the accident occurred; this was also confirmed by the photographs 01, 02, 03, 04 and 05 included in the hand up briefs which were taken immediately after the accident.

20. However if there were potholes on the lane she was travelling on why didn’t she avoid the potholes to the right as there were no other vehicles using the right lane at that time . I also note the spot where the accident occurred is a straight stretch of road and I am of the view there were no physical obstruction of the defendant’s view of the road ahead which could have hindered her vision at the time of the accident. She admitted as she was approaching she saw the deceased and a little girl walking on the left side of the road. So what could have caused her to run off the road and killing the deceased as a direct result. An Independent InspectionReport signed by Provincial Works Manager Douglas Wura dated the 03rd of October 2016 by the Department of Worksrevealed no mechanical defects on the vehicle that could have contributed to the accident; and also affirmed by Defence Counsel in his submissions the vehicle was road worthy prior to and at the time of the accident.

21. I concluded from the damages to the windscreen of the defendant’s vehicle and the severe injuries sustained by the deceasedfrom the impact as shown by photographs No 02 to No. 15 on the Hand up brief; the defendant was travelling at high speed as a direct result she lost control of the said vehicle thus causing the accident. And in dangerous driving causing death cases there must be some fault on the part of the driver as in this case as per the view in The State –v- Elias Subang (2) [1976] PNGLR179 and The State –V- Jim Jobaga Ilivitaro[1977] PNGLR 249.

22. I am satisfied the defendant was at fault thus causing the death of deceased Mary Waninara. I agree with Prosecution Dangerous Driving Causing Death is now a prevalent offence in East New Britain Province as per the number cases being registered and dealt with by this court. There is a rise in fatal accidents and deaths involving motor vehicles over the last 5 years.

23. In Gamoga v State [1981] PNGLR 443, the Supreme Court stated;

“In sentencing for the offence of dangerous driving causing death, whilst the need for public deterrence prevails over other factors, the sentence itself remains within the discretion of the court which ought to distinguish for the purposes thereof between cases of heedlessness or recklessness; i.e. between cases of incompetenceand error of judgment on the one hand and cases involving circumstances of aggravation on the other hand”.

24. The Supreme Court further discussed and distinguished between heedlessness and recklessness by stating;

“However, despite the strictures in Willy Moke Soki (supra) of the usefulness to be made of cases and decisions in other societies, I think that there is a distinction between cases of heedlessness and recklessness or, expressed in another way, between cases of incompetence and error of judgment on the one hand and cases involving circumstances of aggravation, regrettably familiar, which so often characterize the more serious breaches of the section – high speed, intoxication, overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic, cutting corners, and other such examples of recklessness involved in deliberate taking unjustifiable risks: See per Jacobs J, in R. v. Hill [dccxi] 15. Another serious breach may be the person who drives a vehicle which he knows to be un-roadworthy or in a dangerous condition”.
25. With the facts of the present case before me and in comparison to the number of cases and instances which the Defence had alluded to in its submission; the defendant’s case falls between heedlessness and recklessness and more so to heedlessness. Heedlessness is basically defined as carelessness or negligence. The accident occurred due the defendant’s own carelessness or negligence and failure to keep a proper look out and control of the vehicle she was driving.

26. Now despite the defendant’s clean record and earlier guilty plea, the amount in cash and kind to the family of the deceased; the interest of the community must be given paramount consideration as the offence of Dangerous Driving Causing Death now stands as a prevalent offence in East New Britain and in particularly Kokopo District. I consider a minimum custodial sentence would best suit the crime the defendant has committed as it will stand as a deterrent to not only the defendant but to the community at large.

27. I therefore convict and sentence the defendant to six (6) month in hard labour and the defendant’s driving license is suspended for a period of 18 months, suspension will commence from the date of release from custody. Driving License to be surrendered to the Clerk of Court. Defendant’s cash bail be refunded forthwith.

.......................

Mrs. Elizabeth Munap of Kokopo Police Prosecution

Mr. Robert Asa of Warner Shand Lawyers, Kokopo Office