Police v Gispe [2020] PGDC 17; DC4073 (3 November 2020)

DC 4073

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS TRAFFIC JURISDICTION]

WTC No 793 of 2020
BETWEEN

THE POLICE
Informant

AND

JOE GISPE
Defendant

Waigani: S Tanei

2020: 3^rd of November
      

TRAFFIC OFFENCE – Driving Without Due Care and Attention – s 28(2)(a) – Road Traffic Rules- Road User Rules 2017

TRAFFIC OFFENCE- Sentence – Plea of Guilty – principles of sentencing discussed and considered – Driving Without Due Care and Attention- Mitigating Factors considered – Fine of K 1, 000.00.

Cases Cited

State –v- Dua (2013) PNGNC 8; N4957
Police –v- Albert Manape WTC 740 of 2020,21.09.2020,Unreported.
Police –v- Noel Henao WTC 744 of 2020, 21.09.2020, Unreported.

References

Legislation

District Courts Act 1963
Road Traffic Rules – Road User Rules 2017

Counsel

Sergeant Emmanuel Bigam, for the Informant

The Defendant in Person

RULING ON SENTENCE

3^rd November 2020

S Tanei: The Offender, Joe Gispe pleaded guilty to one count of Driving Without Due Care and Attention on 19^th October 2020.

2. This is my ruling on sentence.

FACTS:

3. The Offender, Joe Gispe was charged with one count of Driving Without Due Care and Attention under section 28 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Rules – Road User Rules 2017.

4. Joe Gispe pleaded guilty to the following facts;

5. On 6^th September 2020 at around 6.30 am, Joe Gispe, drove a Motor Vehicle namely a white/green Toyota Coaster Bus bearing registration number P602D.

6. At that time, he was under the influence of alcohol and was travelling on high speed from 4 mile roundabout towards Murray Barracks. The Defendant was chased by Wasman Security Guards regarding a prior accident along the way.
6. As he was escaping, he ran straight into a Police vehicle namely a 10 Seater Toyota Landcruiser blue in colour with Registration number ZPD 237.

7. The Police vehicle suffered damage to its rear doors and glass.

ANTECEDENT REPORT

7. The Offender is 50 years old and hails from Banz Village in North Waghi, Jiwaka Province. He is married with 6 children and resides at 2 Mile, NCD. He is a PMV Driver and has no prior convictions.

ALLOCOTUS:

8. During Allocotus, the Offender said he was sorry for what he had done. He also stated that he had never been involved in an accident before. He said he was a Kumul player before and that he has 5 children and tries to look after them by driving a PMV Bus in the city.

9. He also stated that he spent K 2000 to help fix the police vehicle.

ISSUES:

9. The Court is faced with the following issues;

1. What is the sentence the Court should impose on the Offender?
   

THE LAW

10. Section 28 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Rules – Road User Rules 2017 provides that;

“(2) The driver of a motor vehicle on a public street must not–

(a) drive without due care and attention;........”

11. The penalty for this offence is provided under Schedule 1 of the Road Traffic (Offences & Penalties Regulation) Act 2017. This offence carries a maximum penalty of K 2, 500.00 fine and an infringement fee of K 500.

SENTENCE
12. The offence that the Offender pleaded guilty to is under a new legislation and as such there is limited case law in this area of law.

13. In deciding on the appropriate sentence the Court must be guided by sentencing principles.

14. I will adopt the decision making process applied by His Honour Justice Cannings in the case of State –v- Dua (2013) PNGNC 8; N4957 and the recent cases of Police –v- Albert Manape WTC 740 of 2020, 21.09.2020, Unreported and Police –v- Noel Henao WTC 744 of 2020, 21.09.2020, Unreported. In those cases, the the following decision making process was used:

• step 1: what is the maximum penalty?
• step 2: what is a proper starting point?
• step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?
• step 4: what is the head sentence?
  

Step 1: what is the maximum penalty?

14. The maximum penalty provided for under the Regulations is a fine of K 2, 500.00. This is reserved for the worst case scenario.

Step 2: what is a proper starting point?

15. In the cases provided above, I held that the proper starting point would be the mid-point since the Prisoner pleaded guilty.

16. In our case, the mid-point would be an amount of K 1, 250.00 fine.

Step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?

17. As in the cases mentioned above I will rely on the mitigating factors and aggravating factors and work up or down from the mid-point.

18. In the case of Police –v- Albert Manape, the offender pleaded guilty to one count of driving without due care and attention. He was fined K 2, 500.00 because his case was in the worst case scenario. Here, the prisoner showed no remorse for his actions as he was under the influence of alcohol and also the vehicle that he crashed into was damaged beyond repair. His case fell under the worst case scenario.

Step 4: what is the head sentence?

18. The mitigating factors are;

1. The offender pleaded guilty to the offence right after he was arraigned.
2. The offender is a first time offender with no prior convictions.

100. He showed genuine remorse.

4. He assisted in repairing the vehicle he damaged to a cost of K 2, 000.00
   

19. The aggravating factors are;

1. He was driving under the influence of liquor.
2. He was speeding.
   

20. When considering the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors, the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors.

22. In submissions on sentence, Sergeant Bigam of Police Prosecutions submitted that this type of offences are prevalent and the Court must impose a sentence to deter people from committing them.

23. While I uphold the proposition by the Prosecutor that the relevant sentence must deter people from committing the offence, I am of the view that in this case the offender has taken upon himself to make right the wrong he did. He did so by cooperating with the Police and also by fully repairing the damage he caused to the Police Vehicle.

CONCLUSION

24. Considering the above, I find that the appropriate penalty would be fine of K 1, 000.00.

COURT ORDERS

25. The following are the formal orders of the Court;

1. Joe Gispe, having pleaded guilty and being convicted of the offence of Driving Without Due Care and Attention under section 28 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Rules – Road User Rules 2017 is to pay a fine of K 1, 000.00
   
2. The Offender’s Bail of K 1,000.00 is forfeited and converted to Court fine and pays for the total fine.
   

Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions

Lawyer for the Offender: In Person