Police v Hove [2021] PGDC 133; DC6087 (14 September 2021)

DC6087

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDICTION]

Sum. No 1400 of 2021

C.B. No. 2402 of 2021
BETWEEN

THE POLICE
Informant

AND

KOIVI HOVE
Defendant

Boroko: Seth Tanei

2021: 14^th of September

SUMMARY OFFENCE –– Drunk and Disorderly – s 4 – Summary Offences Act 1977

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Sentence – Plea – Drunk and Disorderly, - principles of sentencing discussed and considered –Imprisonment for a term of 2 months, fully suspended and Offender placed on Good Behaviour Bond.

Cases Cited

State v Benson [2006] PGNC 68; 4481
State –v- Mavuug [2012] PNGNC 255; N4898
Yalibakut –v- The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 SC890
Police –v- Koin & 3 Others [2011] DCR 1277-1280 of 2011, 08.11.2011, Unreported
Police –v- Yomsa [2021] PGDC 105; DC6061

References

NIL

Legislation

Summary Offences Act 1977
Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 2018
Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986

Counsel

Sergeant Wilson Golina, for the Informant

The Offender in Person

RULING ON SENTENCE

14^th September 2021

S Tanei: The Offender, Koivi Hove, pleaded guilty to the offences of being Drunk and Disorderly under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1977 on 13^th September 2021.

2. Submissions on sentence were made on 13^th September 2021.

3. The following is my ruling on sentence.

FACTS:

4. These are the facts to which the Offender pleaded guilty;

5. On 25^th August 2021, the Offender was at Big Rooster, Boroko, National Capital District.
   
6. At that time the Offender was sighted by Police on duty. He was loitering and was drunk and was acting disorderly. When the Police sighted him, they surrounded him, apprehended him and took him to the Police Station at Boroko.
   
7. At the Police station, the Offender was arrested and charged for being drunk and disorderly and detained.
   

ANTECEDENT REPORT

8. The Offender is 32 years old. He is from Arawe Village, Baimuru District, Gulf Province. He is married with one child and resides at Kaugere Settlement in NCD. He is self employed and has no prior convictions.
   

ALLOCOTUS:

9. During Allocotus, the Offender apologised to the Court and asked for the Court’s mercy.
   

ISSUES:

10. What is the appropriate penalty the Court should impose on the offender?
    

THE LAW:

11. The Offender was charged under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1977.
    
12. Section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1977 provides that;
    

‘A person who is found drunk in a public place and who acts in a manner that disturbs a reasonable member of the public or is likely to disturb a reasonable member of the public, is guilty of an offence.”

13. The Penalty for this offence is provided for under section 4 of the Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 2018 which sets the penalty at K 2000 fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months.
    

PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

14. It is important to use an established sentencing process when handing down the sentence. Thus, I will use the decision making process applied by His Honour Justice Cannings in the cases of State v Benson [2006] PGNC 68; 4481 and State –v- Mavuug [2012] PNGNC 255; N4898. This is the process that was used;
    

Step 1: what is the maximum penalty?

Step 2: what is a proper starting point?

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

Step 4: what is the head sentence?

Step 5: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted from the term of imprisonment?

Step 6: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY?

15. The prescribed maximum penalty under the Summary Offences Act is a fine of K2000 or imprisonment for six months. The maximum is usually reserved for the worst case scenario.
    

STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT?

16. I held in a number of cases that in plea matters, the mid-point is the proper starting point for sentencing.
    
17. Therefore, the starting point in this case would be K 1, 000 fine or 3 months imprisonment. The court can then work its way up or down depending on the mitigating and the aggravating factors and also the circumstances of the case itself.
    

STEP 3: WHAT SENTENCES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR EQUIVALENT OFFENCES?

18. I have not come across so many reported cases that dealt with the Offence of Drunk and Disorderly.
    
19. In the case of Police –v- Koin & 3 Others [2011] DCR 1277-1280 of 2011, 08.11.2011, Unreported his His Worship John Kaumi (as he then was) comprehensively dealt with the law and penalty to the offence of Being Drunk and Disorderly. That is. In that case, the offenders pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly where they entered the premises of a school a disturbed the students and proceedings at the school while being drunk. They were sentenced to 2 months imprisonment each.
    
20. In Police –v- Yomsa [2021] PGDC 105; DC6061; the Offender pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly. He was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for this offence. In that case the offender also caused damage to property belonging to another person.
    
21. In the above cases, the sentences ranged from 2-3 months imprisonment depending on the severity of the offence.
    

STEP 4: WHAT IS THE HEAD SENTENCE FOR EACH OFFENCE?

22. Mitigating and aggravating factors play an important role in determining the head sentence. The more mitigating factors, the lower the sentence falls below the midpoint while the more aggravating factors would mean the higher the sentence falls above the mid point.
    
23. In this matter, the Offender pleaded guilty so he will be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating factors. I apply the principle in Yalibakut –v- The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890.
    
24. These are the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case;
    
25. The mitigating factors are;
    
    1. Early Guilty Plea
    2. Expression of remorse
    100. No prior convictions
         
26. The aggravating factors are;
    
    1. He was drunk and disorderly in a Public Place
       
27. Sergeant Wilson Golina of Police Prosecutions submitted that the Offender be given a non custodial sentence as the facts of this matter do not point out how the Offender was disorderly in public.
    
28. The Offender did not make any submissions apart from his allocotus.
    
29. It is my view that this particular offence has become prevalent in the city. People are seen drunk and disorderly in public places with no regard for the public. The respect for the public is no longer there. Therefore a stand has to be taken against people committing this offence.
    
30. The sentence that I impose on the Offender in this case must have a deterring effect on the Offender. It must also rehabilitate him and make him a better person.
    
31. While this offence is prevalent, I do not find that this particular case falls under the worst case scenario. This is because the facts do not disclose the details of the defendant being disorderly on public. Also the mitigating factors outnumber the aggravating factors.
    
32. From the Antecedent Report, the Offender is self-employed and has no prior convictions. However, this offence is prevalent and as mentioned, the sentence in this case must deter the Offender as well as others from doing it.
    
33. It is my view that the most appropriate sentence would be imprisonment for 2 months.
    

STEP 5: SHOULD THE PRE-SENTENCE PERIOD IN CUSTODY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT?

34. Yes. Section 3 (2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) Act 1986, gives the power to the Court to deduct the pre-sentence time spent in custody. The Offender in this matter has been in custody since 25^th August 2021. Twenty (20) days will be deducted from the total sentence.
    

STEP 6: SHOULD ALL OR PART OF THE SENTENCE BE SUSPENDED?

35. I have considered the mitigating factors in this matter and am of the view that the sentence should be suspended.
    
36. I therefore suspend the Offender’s entire sentence.
    
37. However, the Offender will be placed on Good Behaviour Bond with strict conditions.
    

CONCLUSION

38. After considering all the factors in this case, the Court sentences the Offender to two months imprisonment. However, the sentence is fully suspended and the Offender will be placed on Good Behaviour Bond.
    

SENTENCE

39. The following is the sentence of the Court;
    
    1. Koivi Hove, having pleaded guilty and being convicted of the offences of Being Drunk and Disorderly under 4 of the Summary Offences Act is sentenced to two (2) months imprisonment in hard labour.
       
    2. Pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the Offender’s period in custody of 20 days is deducted from the total sentence of two (2) months. The Offender shall serve a period of 1 month 10 days.
       
    3. The Offender’s sentence is fully suspended and the Offender is placed on Good Behaviour Bond under the following Conditions;
       
       1. The Offender shall not consume any form of alcohol and or dangerous drugs throughout the length of the Good behaviour Bond.
       2. The Offender shall attend his local church every Saturday.
       3. The Offender shall not reoffend or commit any other Offence while on Good Behaviour Bond.
       4. In default, the Offender shall be brought before the Court and if found guilty of breach of any of the Conditions listed above, the Good Behaviour Orders will be lifted and the Offender shall be committed to Bomana Prison.
       5. The Good Behaviour Orders shall expire on 25^th October 2021.
          
    4. The Offender shall be released from custody forthwith.
       

Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions

Lawyer for the Offender: In Person