Police v Ruana [2021] PGDC 114; DC6070 (25 August 2021)

DC6070

Papua New Guinea

[In the Criminal Jurisdictions of the District Court Held at Waigani]
SITTING IN ITS COMMITTAL JURISDICTION

COM NO 95 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
[Informant]

AND:

NOEL TAHA RUANA (TAIVERI)
[Defendant]

Waigani: Paul Puri Nii

25 August 2021

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: Charge- Armed Robbery -Section 386(1)(2) (a)(b)(c) –of the Criminal Code Act 1974, Chapter No. 262. Calculation of evidence-Witness Statement in the Police hand-up-brief must establish prima facie evidence rewarding all elements of the charge to commit the Defendant.

PRACTISE AND PROCEDURE: Court’s jurisdiction is cramped to the assessment of evidence-Limited authority-vital ingredients for prima facie case- Authenticity of the basics of charge of Armed Robbery– Defendant is identified and recognized– Defendant admitted he was involved in getting the money-Defendant argued he did not use violence and treats –admission of involvement- Enforcement of Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act- Evidence is self-testament to corroborate the allegation-No other issues raised-Evidence is sufficient enough to commit the Defendant –Defendant is now committed.

PNG Cases cited:

Police v Kimisopa [2021] PGDC 76; DC6031
Akia v. Francis [2016] PGNC 335; N6555
Yarume v. Eugua[1996] PNGNC 24; N1476
Police v. Koka [2021] PGDC 53; DC6010
Police v Medako [2021] PGDC 54; DC6011

Overseas cases cited:
Nil

REFERENCE

Legislation
Constitution
Criminal Code Act 1974, Chapter 262
District Court Act 1963, Chapter 40

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: Sgt Joseph Sangam For the Informant
Justina Bibilo: Public Solicitor For the Defendant

COURT’S RULING

25^th August 2021

INTRODUCTION

NII, P.Paul Magistrate. This is my ruling pursuant to Section 95 of the District Court Act 1963. The judgment is arrived at after pragmatically assessing Police evidence and Defense submission against evidence establishing the allegation. Defendant made his oral submission on 26^th July 2021, which was centered on a written submission filed on 9^th July 2021. Prosecution subsequently objected to the Defense arguments and now is my ruling on the evidence.

CHARGE

1. Defendant now in court is presently brought in from custody and is charged pursuant to Section 386(1)(2) (a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 [Chapter No. 262].
   

FACTS

2. Police allege on 03^rd November 2016, between 7.00am and 8.00am, Defendant with other co-accused were at Tropic Air Terminal at 7 mile, Jacksons International Airport Port in the National Capital District. It is suspected when other accomplices stood guard the entrance of Tropic Air Terminal, the Defendant and other two(2) proceeded to the loading shed through the arrival gate and held up the pilot and a R.H accounts staff by pointing two(2) pistols on their heads and rapidly hiked away with six(6) large bundles holding K1.195 million in hard cash. The Defendant and his accomplices robbed the moneys property of RH group of companies which were destined for a logging camp in East New Britain Province and absconded on a white Ford ranger with a false number plate of BEV 869. It is further claim Defendant with his accomplices drove to Gorodns 5 area where they exchanged vehicle, unloaded the parcels containing money to two(2) Toyota land cruisers and dove to Vadavada settlement where the monies were shared between the offenders and disappeared. Police allege on 31^st December 2016 at 9.30pm, Defendant was captured at Gorudobu village, Koiare, Sirunum dam in Central Province and later police went to Defendant’s village in Wausuma village in Rigo District and recovered K50, 000, in cash. On 16^th January 2017, Defendant was charged for the offence of Armed Robbery under Section 386(1)(2) (a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1974, [Chapter No. 262].
   

ISSUE

3. Whether Defendant is accountable under Section 386(1)(2) (a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1974, [Chapter No. 262] and whether Police evidence against the Defendant is sufficient to commit the Defendant.
   

THE LAW

4. I derive my authority to rule on this case under Section 95 of the District Court Act. This permitted authority is further reinforced in the case of Police v Kimisopa [2021] PGDC 76; DC6031, where it gives me power to measure evidence in the Police-hand-up brief and consider whether there is prima facie sufficient evidence against the Defendant. Moreover in Akia v Francis [2016] PGNC 335; N6555, his honor Gavara-Nanu J underlined the committal court’s function as it is an administrative practice in which an examination is made into the charge(s) against the Defendant(s) with conforming to the Police evidence to perceive if the evidence against the accuse established a prima facie case or is satisfactory to commit the Defendant. In gratitude of the case laws, I have recited the written Laws under which committal court has powers beneath:
   

95. Court to consider whether prima facie case.

(1) Where all the evidence offered on the part of the prosecution has been heard or received, the Court shall consider whether it is sufficient to put the defendant on trial.

(2) If the Court is of opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to put the defendant on trial for an indictable offence it shall immediately order the defendant, if in custody, to be discharged as to the information then under inquiry.

(3) If the Court is of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to put the defendant on trial for an indictable offence, it shall proceed with the examination in accordance with this Division.

CHARGE

5. Defendant now in court is charge by Police for actions and conducts conflicting the laws under Section 386(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code Act. The offending charge:
   

386. The offence of robbery.

(1) A person who commits robbery is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(2) If a person charged with an offence against Subsection (1)—

(a) is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or

(b) is in company with one or more other persons; or

(c) at, immediately before or immediately after, the time of the robbery, wounds or uses any other personal violence to any person, he is liable to be sentenced to death.

EVIDENCE

6. Evidence plays a vital role in the administration of committal jurisdiction for indictable offences where subsequent trial is administered by the National court. The court has detailed visibly in Police v Koka [2021] PGDC 53; DC6010, the prominence of evidence. The court states ...”An allegation will only be proven through evidence since it is the accessible body of facts or material designating whether the allegation against the Defendant is proper or made-up...”. The matters in the police file must decide whether there are suitable or lacking evidence to make a case against the Defendant. Defense submission is fundamentally requesting the court that police evidence is underprovided. This is a battle against the Police hand-up-brief; nevertheless, the court’s jurisdiction shall be drilled to deliver which side the decision shall favor.
   

Defense Case

7. Defendant sought the service of Public Solicitor Lawyers to represent him and hence Lawyer Justina Bibilo through a submission dated 9^th July 2021, argues Police have not established the elements of the offence of Arm Robbery. Defendant says the subject was about Defendant’s participation in getting the money. Defense Lawyer informed the court her client took part in getting the money together with other co-accuses but maintains there were no extortions and weapons used by the Defendant in the commission of the crime.
   
8. Defense Lawyer submits at paragraph 34 of her submission that accuse admitted in his record of interview that he took part in the robbery at Tropic Airway but he did not use any precarious missile to intimidate RH accounts officer and the Pilot. Ms Bibilo also submits Accused did not sign off the ROI and says the remaining money recovered by police is K75, 000 and not K50, 000 as allege by Police.
9. Defense consequently founded her submission on this and also in the case of Yarume v Euga^[1] that Police evidence is lacking to commit the Defendant for the allegation of Armed Robbery and thus asked for the information to be dismissed.
   

Prosecution Case

10. Police evidence is captured in the Police hand-up-brief which was served on the court. Police evidence institutes witness statements, ROI, photo exhibits and police statements. There are total of more than 30 state witness but I have discussed the ones which are applicable for my ruling in committal. Chin Siew Ying is an Accountant with HR Group of Companies. His evidence says how the money was progressed from Guard dog head office to Tropic Air terminal at 7 mile while the evidence of Aves Michole and Sean Annes say they are Accounts officers with RH Group of companies. They say they received K45,000 from Corps security and handed it over to Jackson Chin. Evidence of Ababi and Agumen Famundi confirms the movement of money by guard dog to the airport. Statements of Voi Hugh, Nonua Perry, Nakambari Danyson, Lanti Lohia and Joyno Jonathan says they involved in the facilitation to transfer money from Guard dog security to Tropic air terminal and for the plane to transfer the money out from NCD to East New Britain Province. Evidence of Avosa Joseph, John Kerai, Kapat Simeon, Kalabus Timothy, Arazi Misel and Koupera Michale says they witnessed the incident of armed robbery while the statements of Wanjer Rose, Jerewai Daphne, Arther Jakis, Maruka John, Mayana Guya, Tony Ruana, Garry Gawi, Ume Thomas and Franci Kerta says they arranged and hired vehicles involved in the robbery for robbers to use. The rest are witness from Police regarding how they captured the Defendant and recovered some of the stolen money. Their statements also include how the Defendant was interrogated in the record of interview and the Defendant’s feedback including his admission.
    

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

11. Defendant admitted at page 3 of his ROI that him and two (2) others named were involved in the robbery. Defendnat says, he only took part in what was already a pre-planned armed robbery. Defendant’s admission was consistent all though the ROI. Defendant’s admission was revised by his Lawyer at paragraphs 31 and 34 of the submission in reaction to the police evidence. I have considered evidence in the police file and therefore established two (2) things here and they are, firstly; there was an offence of allege Armed Robbery at Tropic Air terminal on 3^rd November 2016 and secondly; Defendant was at the time of allegation allege to have been involved in obtaining parcels containing money. Although Defendant was participating in getting of money, his Lawyer argued that he should not be committed because he did not use violence or threats however, before I appreciate the Defendant’s argument, let me look at the wordings of the offending charge. Defendant is charge under Section 386(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code Act. The offending charge is in the following terms:
    

386. The offence of robbery.

(1) A person who commits robbery is guilty of a crime. Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(2) If a person charged with an offence against Subsection (1)—

(a) is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or

(b) is in company with one or more other persons; or

(c) at, immediately before or immediately after, the time of the robbery, wounds or uses any other personal violence to any person, he is liable to be sentenced to death.

12. The authority under which the Defendant was charged to my belief is Section 386(2)(b) for his part in accompanying the others who had weapons and used threats. When police information containing the change was labeled as Section 386(1)(2)(a)(b)(c), this provision covers the Defendant’s purported acts at the time of allege offence. Therefore, the Defendant’s perpetrated comportments are well enclosed in the provisions of the offending law. Moreover, in order to establish the elements of the offence, the relationship between each succeeding sub paragraphs of the offending laws must be judiciously considered. In the current wording, the word that separates a sub-paragraph after subsection 2 is the word ‘OR’ meaning either of them, it provides options, not obligation or necessity. Therefore, the argument by Defense the elements of the charge was not met is refused.
    
13. Defendant’s second argument the ROI was not signed. I have considered this argument and view it has less weight since the ROI captured his confessional statement which is consistent with his Lawyers submission on admission of his part in the offence. If Defendant had admitted to the offence then what credit would the issue of not signing his signature have? It is the Defendant’s constitutional rights not to sign on his ROI and hence no one will force him to sign. Moreover, Defendant says the total money Police recovered from him was K75, 000 and not K50, 000. This argument has less significant to the defense case because it does not justify that Defendant did not obtain money from the robbery. Again, whether Defendant returned K75, 000 or K50, 000, these are unsupportive evidence because it does not create a Defense for the accused that he did not benefit from the allege robbery. Therefore, Defense argument under this issue is refused.
    

RULING

14. This is my ruling on the allegation of Armed Robbery under Section 386(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code Act against the Defendant. I am satisfied; Defendant did not use violence and had dangerous weapons at the time of allegation. Nevertheless, I am satisfied Defendant contributed in the commission of the offence by collecting parcels of money which was later distributed among his co accuseds. The ruling in the case of Police v Medako [2021] PGDC 54; DC6011, stretches prominence to Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act^[2] by pointing out that aiding, planning and contributing towards the commission of an offence should be correspondingly deemed as taking part in the offence as their ultimate aim is to robe form the victim and therefore I have sufficient prima facie evidence to satisfy myself Defendant had allegedly committed the offence of Armed robbery.
    

CONCLUSION

15. I have assessed Police evidence with the Defense submission and satisfy myself that there is overwhelming satisfactory evidence against the Defendant for the offence of Armed Robbery Under Section386(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code Act..
    
16. ORDERS
    
    1. Evidence is sufficient to commit the Defendant.
       
    2. Defendant is Committed.

Public Solicitor For the defendant
Police Prosecutor For the State

---

^[1] The District Court’s jurisdiction to hear committal maters

^[2] Principal offenders.
(1) When an offence is committed, each of the following persons shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it:—
(a) every person who actually does the act or makes the omission that constitutes the offence; and
(b) every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; and
(c) every person who aids another person in committing the offence; and
(d) any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence