Police v Awa [2021] PGDC 139; DC6092 (15 September 2021)

DC 6092

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDICTION]

Sum. No 1285 of 2021

C.B. No. 2269 of 2021
BETWEEN

THE POLICE
Informant

AND

KAIRI AWA
Defendant

Boroko: Seth Tanei

2021: 15^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 3 months.

Cases Cited

State v Benson [2006] PGNC 68; 4481
Yalibakut –v- The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 SC890
State –v- Dua [2013] PGNC 8; N4957
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

15^th September 2021

Seth Tanei: The Offender, Kairi Awa, pleaded guilty to the offence of being Drunk and Disorderly under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1977 on 13^th September 2021.

2. Initially, the Offender pleaded not guilty on 18^th August 2021 and the matter was set for trial. However, on 13^th September 2021, he changed his plea to guilty and submissions on sentence were made.
   
3. The following is my ruling on sentence.
   

FACTS

4. The offender pleaded guilty to the following facts.
   
5. On 15^th August 2021 at around 5.30 pm to 6 pm, the Offender was at Koki Market Bus Stop, National Capital District.
   
6. He was under the influence of alcohol and was behaving in a very disorderly manner wherein he removed his shirt and was bare chested in public. He verbally insulted and abused random members of the public who were trying to go to the market or catch the PMV to other places in the city.
   
7. He was sighted by Police Motorized Unit on patrol and he was apprehended and taken to Badili Police Station where he was formally arrested and charged and taken to Boroko Police Station for detention.
   

ANTECEDENT REPORT

8. The Offender is 33 years old. He is from Mopaio Village, Baimuru District, Gulf Province. He is unemployed and resides at Koki, NCD. He was previously convicted for being in possession of Dangerous Drugs in 2014.
   

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 for each offence?

Step 5: should the sentences be served concurrently or cumulatively?

Step 6: what is the effect of the totality principle?

Step 7: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted from the term of imprisonment?

Step 8: 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 Police –v- Koive Hove, the Offender pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly. He was sentenced to two (2) months imprisonment, fully suspended. The Court considered his mitigating factors in its sentence.
    
22. In the above cases, the sentences ranged from 2-3 months imprisonment depending on the manner in which the offence was committed.
    

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

23. The Offender will be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating factors as he pleaded guilty. 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. Guilty Plea
    2. Expression of remorse
       
26. The aggravating factors are;
    
    1. He was insulting and abusing innocent members of the Public at that time
    2. He has a prior conviction for being in possession of dangerous drugs
       
27. Sergeant Wilson Golina of Police Prosecutions submitted that the Offender be given a non-custodial sentence. He pointed out the mitigating factors in that the Offender pleaded guilty and that he expressed remorse.
    
28. As I have expressed in the case of Police –v- Koive Hove, being drunk and disorderly in public has become prevalent in the city and is a concern for this court. Something must be done about this so that people are deterred from committing this offence. Both young and old, male and female are perpetrators these days. The amendments to the penalty provisions of Offences in the Summary Offences Act increasing the penalties through the Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 2018 shows the prevalence of Summary Offences and the need for tougher penalties to deter people from committing them.
    
29. I am of the view that the sentence that I impose on the Offender will deter him as well as other members of the society from committing this particular offence.
    
30. Although this case does not fall under the worst case category in my view, the manner in which it was committed is more serious than other cases. The Offender was not only drunk but he was abusing and insulting innocent members of the public who were minding their own business at that time. He was indeed behaving disorderly while being drunk and was disturbing members of the Public.
    
31. I also note that the Offender has a prior conviction. He was convicted in 2014 for being in possession of dangerous drugs and has served time in custody.
    
32. It is my view that the sentence that I impose should deter the Offender from committing this offence again and rehabilitate him.
    
33. I note that during allocotus the Offender promised the Court that he will not commit the Offence again. However, I have difficulty in accepting this submission as the Offender has a prior conviction. He may not comply with Conditions of a Good Behaviour Bond if he is given a noncustodial sentence.
    
34. I am minded to give the Offender a custodial sentence.
    
35. Taking into account all the factors in this matter, I will impose a sentence of 3 months imprisonment on the Offender.
    

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

36. 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 15^th August 2021. One month will be deducted from the total sentence.
    

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

37. I have considered all the factors in this matter and I am of the view that none of the sentence should be suspended.
    

CONCLUSION

38. In conclusion, the Court sentences the Offender to three months imprisonment in hard labour.
    

SENTENCE

39. The following is the sentence of the Court;
    
    1. Kairi Waw, having pleaded guilty and being convicted of the offence of Being Drunk and Disorderly under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act is sentenced to three (3) 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 1 month is deducted from the total sentence of three (3) months.
       
    3. The Offender shall serve two (2) months in hard labour at Bomana Corrections Institution.
       
    4. A Warrant of Commitment is issued forthwith.
       

Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions

Lawyer for the Offender: In Person