Police v Anton [2021] PGDC 10; DC5063 (18 March 2021)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Sentence – Plea of Guilty – principles of sentencing discussed and considered – Carrying Offensive Weapon- Mitigating Factors considered – Imprisonment for 4months.

State –v- Dua (2013) PNGNC 8; N4957
National Fisheries Authority –v- Pais Taihu [2020] DC4075
Police –v- Michael [2009] DC939
Police –v- Junior Jerry Bisar [2009] DC944
Police –v- Colil Sok & Colil Kati [2009] DC938
Acting Public Prosecutor –v- Aumane, Boku, Wapulai and Kone [1980] PNGLR 150
References
NIL

S Tanei: The Offender, John Anton pleaded guilty to one count of Carrying an Offensive Weapon on 11^th March 2021.

3. The Offender, John Anton was charged with one count of Carrying an Offensive Weapon under section 12 (1) of the Summary Offences Act 1977.

5. On 25^th February 2021 at about 8.30 am, John Anton was sighted outside the Downtown Plaza in Port Moresby by Police Officers on foot beat patrol. He was acting in a very suspicious manner.

6. The Police Officers approached the offender and searched him. From the search, they found in his left back pocket a stainless steel kitchen knife, 15 centimetres in length.

7. When the Policemen were trying to take the offender to the Station, he pushed them away and ran away. He was eventually caught by other police officers who came to assist their colleagues in front of the Oil Search Office. He was then put into a police vehicle and taken to Town Police Station where he formally arrested, cautioned and told of his Constitutional Rights. He was then detained at Boroko Police Cells.

8. The Offender is 33 years old and hails from Koniki Village in Asaro, Eastern Highlands Province. He is married with no children and resides at Muniago Street, Badili, NCD. He is unemployed and has one (1) prior conviction for Drinking in a Public Place.

9. During Allocotus, the Offender said “Me rong na me tok sorry lo kot” meaning I was wrong and I apologise to the Court.

12. The Penalty provision in section 12 (1) has been amended by the Summary Offences Amended Act 2018. This offence now carries a penalty of A fine not exceeding K 4, 000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two (2) years.

PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCE
13. There are numerous cases that deal with this offence.

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

15. 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 His Worship Mr. Samuel Lavutul in the case of National Fisheries Authority –v- Pais Taihu [2020] DC4075. In those cases, the following decision making process was used:

16. The maximum penalty provided for under the Act is a fine of K 4, 000.00 or 2 years imprisonment. This is reserved for the worst case scenario.

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

18. In our case, the mid-point would be an amount of K 2, 000 fine or 1 year imprisonment.

19. It is important to look at the sentencing trends and similar cases when handing down the sentence.

20. In the case of Police –v- Michael [2009] DC939, the offender pleaded guilty to one count of carrying an offensive weapon namely a bush knife. He was fined K 200.00. The Court took into consideration sentencing guidelines and principles established by the National Court.

21. In the case of Police –v- Junior Jerry Bisar [2009] DC944, the offender pleaded guilty to one count of carrying an offensive weapon namely a toy pistol. He was given a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (wholly suspended with conditions). The court considered mitigating and aggravating factors before handing down its sentence.

22. In Police –v- Colil Sok & Colil Kati [2009] DC938, the offenders pleaded guilty to carrying offensive weapons namely a homemade shotgun and a pistol. They were sentenced to 1 year imprisonment in hard labour. Half of their sentences (6 months) were suspended.

23. I note from the judgements given above that the sentences varied depending on the type of weapon that the Offender was found to be in possession of at the time of the offence.

24. In this matter, the Offender was in possession of a 15 centimetre steel kitchen knife unlike the cases of Junior Jerry Bisar and Colil Sok & Colil Kati.

25. The Offender pleaded guilty to the offence that he was charged with. Thus, it is only proper that the Court takes into account the mitigating and the aggravating circumstances.

28. From the factors before the Court, it is obvious that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.

29. In submissions on sentence, Constable Tarrabie Agu of Police Prosecutions submitted that this offence is serious and is prevalent and the Court must impose a sentence to deter people from committing them.

30. He further submitted that the Offender is a repeat offender. In that, the Prosecutor submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence the Court should impose a penalty of six months imprisonment.

31. I uphold the submissions by the Prosecutor in that the relevant sentence must deter people from committing the offence. However, I also am mindful that the appropriate sentence must follow the sentencing trends and guidelines set by the law and the Courts.

32. Considering the sentencing guidelines and trends, I note that the sentences differ depending on the type of weapon that the Offender was in possession of at the time of the offence. In the cases that the offenders carried guns or imitations of guns, the sentences were higher than those that carried knives, etc. Also, the circumstances surrounding the case itself contribute to the type of sentence that the Court gives to the offender.

33. In this case, the Offender was in possession of a 15 centimetre kitchen knife. He was also acting suspicious when he was held by the Police. He broke free and ran away from the Police some distance before he was recaptured by the Police. There may be many reasons for doing so. He may be escaping from fear of being beaten by Police. However, to my mind, his escape showed that he was planning something wrong when he was caught by the Police.

34. The Offender’s mitigating factors do not work in his favour in this case. While he pleaded guilty and expressed remorse, he still has another conviction against his name. He also did not cooperate with Police when he was apprehended. He broke free from the Police and escaped and was chased and caught by the Police some distance away from where he was first stopped and searched.

35. From the Antecedent report, the Offender is unemployed with no source of income and so it would be improper for the Court to impose a fine as he might not be able to pay the fine imposed by the Court.

36. In the case of Acting Public Prosecutor –v- Aumane, Boku, Wapulai and Kone [1980] PNGLR 150, the Court discussed principles of sentencing and held that the purposes of sentences are for deterrence, separation, rehabilitation and retribution.

37. In this case, the Offender is not a first time offender. Also, this offence is prevalent in the National Capital District. Thus, in my view, the sentence given to the offender must be deterrent and for his rehabilitation. He must be given time to reflect on his actions and change for the better.

38. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, I find that the appropriate penalty would be a fine of four (4) months imprisonment.

39. John Anton, having pleaded guilty and being convicted of the offence of Carrying an Offensive Weapon under section 12 (1) of the Summary Offences Act is sentenced as follows;

Length of Sentence Imposed	4 months Imprisonment at Bomana Corrections Institution
Pre-Sentence period to be deducted	21 days
Resultant length of sentence to be served	3 Months 9 days
Amount of sentence suspended	NIL
Time to be served in Custody	3 Months 9 days

Papua New Guinea District Court

Police v Anton [2021] PGDC 10; DC5063 (18 March 2021)