Police v David [2018] PGDC 17; DC3099 (23 February 2018)

DC3099
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Cr166Of 2018.

THE POLICE

Informant

AND

PENINA DAVID

Defendant

Goroka, P Kaumba, Magistrate

2018: February 22 , 23

CRIMINAL:

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsel:

Lawyer for the Informant, Police Prosecutor,Mr.RocksyGitene

Lawyer for the Defendant, In person

23^rd February, 2018

SENTENCE

P KAUMBA, Magistrate:Onthe 24^th of February 2018 the Defendant was taken into custody by police and was charged for stealing under section 48b(c) of the Summary Offences Act(herein-after referred to as ‘the SOA’).The Defendant appeared before me on the 27^th day of February 2018from police custody. She pleadedguilty to the charge and the case was adjourned to today (28^thof February2018) for sentence and she was remanded in police custody.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. ‘’That on the24^thday of February 2018 time around 9am-930am this defendant before this court namely Penina David went inside Bingtagor Supermarket and got hold onto one of the coins bag with K200. Coins inside the cashiers to use and give change to customers.

Defendant got the coins bag and quickly walked outside the Supermarket and was about to cross the road when security guards ran to her and arrested her to the supermarket.

At that time police women on duty saw the commotion and went to the supermarket and brought them all to the police station.

At the police station when questioned, the defendant said she saw coins bag on the counter so she just took it and walked out.

With that she was formally arrested,cautioned and told of her

constitutional rights under section 42(2) and placed in the cells and she is

now before the court’’

ANTECEDENT REPORT

2. The defendant is 28 years old, single, unemployed and has no previous convictions.
   

ARRAIGNMENT& CONVICTION

3. In the State –v-Manga Kinjip(1976) PNGLR 86 ‘’where the accused makes his plea of guilty in plain,unmistakeable and without ambiguity then it is safe for the court to accept the plea’’. This is the authority for magistrates to bear in mind in taking pleas from defendants.
4. On arraignment the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and did not dispute the statement of facts(above) and I confirmed their plea of guilty and convicted her.
   
5. Since the offender pleaded guilty to the charge, the court can extract relevant information from the Statement of facts and the charge for the purpose of sentencing(State-vs- Sabarina(1988-1989)PNGLR 129).
   

ALLOCUTUS STATEMENT

6. In allocutus the offendersaid’’Your Worship mi toksori. Miwokimrongpinis. Miaskimkot long givim mi wan moa sans((Your Worship, I have done wrong,I ask the court to give me another chance)’’.
   

ISSUE(S)

7. (1) What is the appropriate penalty for the offender?
   

SUBMISSION BY PROSECUTION

8. Mr.Gitene left it to the court to use its discretion in sentencing.
   

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

9. The offender pleaded guilty and she will be given the benefit of doubt in having all facts in the statement of facts, statement on arraignment, statement in allocutus, antecedent report and other statements made in court that are not contested into account in sentencing(SaperusYalibakup – vs- The State(2006)SCRA No52 0f 2005).
   

SENTENCING PROCESS

10. The sentencing process used by Justice Cannings in the case of State-vs-Raka Benson(2006)CR 447 &450 is a good guide and that is what I intend to use here.
    
    • (a) MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR OFFENCE.
      

SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT(SOA)

48(C) STEALING

(1) A person who steals or attempts to steal anything, capable of being stolen, of a value not exceeding K500.00 is guilty of an offence under this Act.

Penalty : A fine not exceeding K400.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12months.

(b).STARTING POINT

K200.00 fine or imprisonment of six months.

(c), SENTENCING TREND AND GUIDES

(i) TREND.
I am unable to find caseson sentencing in this kind of offences in
our jurisdiction, may be because stealing under the SOA is not
seriousand most of our magistrates don’t want to publish their
reasons. Most decisions I find are on stealing under the criminal
code and are of no help to this court.

(ii) GUIDE.
Highest penalty should be reserved for the worst type of
Offences(State-vs- Michael K Mani(21/5/2002)N2246).
Courts can impose the highest penalty if circumstances and gravity
of the offence requires it to do so.

Guilty plea and first time offender are factors that will act in
mitigatingthe seriousness of the offence{State –vs= Mani(supra)}.
Prevalence of the offence is an aggravating factor{State-vs-
Mani(supra)} In Wellington Belawa-v-State(1988-1989)PNGLR

496’It was held that where the amount of money is less the sentence should be lesser and where the amount of money is more sentence shall higher. Higher sentence be imposed where the offender was in breach of trust reposed on him’’

(d).CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED.
(See statement of facts above).

(i) MITIGATING FACTORS.

(a). Plea of guilty made the work of police and the courts

easy.
(b). No previous conviction.
(c). She showed remorse for her action.

(ii) AGGRAVATING FACTORS.

(a). Prevalence of the offence.

(e) SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS AND SENTENCE.
The offender is a first time offender and there are not much
aggravating factors involved in the commission of the offence. She
expressed remorse for her action. She did not benefit from the
money she attempted to steal because she was caught in the
process of stealing and the same have all being returned to the
victim company.I also note that the offender has been in custody
for 5 days nowwhich is in my view sufficient punishment for her
and I hope she has learnt something from her conduct and I hope
she does not re-offend again and use her strength to work the land
to get food to eat and clothes to wear instead of stealing.

Nevertheless this type of offences are prevalent and people in our
society have been calling for tough action on persons who steal
andthe offender needsto be punished to send a message to
potential offenders in our society to be careful not to commit this
kind of offences. If I sentence her to the rising of this court then
that would not send a proper deterrence message to the public.
HenceI am of the view that the offender should be fined K30.00 to
be paidforthwith before being released from police custody. In
default two weeks imprisonment with light labour.

Counsel:

Lawyer for the Informant, Police Prosecutor, Mr.RocksyGitene

Lawyer for the Defendant, In person