Police v Patrick [2021] PGDC 22; DC5078 (25 January 2021)

DC5078

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

SUM: 36 of 2021

POLICE

-v-
KALSA PATRICK
(Defendant)

VANIMO: B. Fehi

CRIMINAL LAW – Offence under Correctional Services Act – Section 152 (d) (i) (e) – Plea of Guilty – Appropriate Sentence – Duty of the Courts to Protect Criminal Justice System – Maintaining trust of the community

Statutes:

a) Correctional Services Act

No case law cited.

Representations:

Sgt. Jonah Musai for the Police Prosecution

Defendant in-person

25^th January 2021

1. FEHI. B. DCM: The Defendant stands charged pursuant to Section 152 (d) (i) (e) of the Correctional Services Act.

2. Upon arraignment the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the offender) pleaded guilty to the charge. Provisional Guilty Plea entered. No objection to police brief facts by the offender. Safe to confirm the Plea of Guilty based on the facts presented. Guilty Plea entered on record.

3. The offence carries a maximum penalty of an imprisonment term not exceeding two (2) years pursuant to Section 162 of the Correctional Services Act. Parties are referred to the relevant legislation for full provision.

4. Antecedent tendered confirms the Offender to be a convicted felon, serving time for an offence of Murder pursuant to Section 300 of the Criminal Code Act. He is due for release no later than two (2) months from today.

5. Allocutus administered to the offender. He remarked that the actions taken by the Correctional Services Officers were unfair because other inmates were not brought before the Court for similar conducts. He also said that he only used the phone to communicate with his mother and not for any purpose that would threaten the security of the jail establishment. He then asks for mercy and for this court to impose court fine, alternatively, place him on probation.

6. The prosecution submitted that this is a serious offence; therefore, a clear example must be set for fellow inmates and remandees not to repeat such conduct. Prosecution submitted for a jail term to be imposed on the offender.

7. What now, is an appropriate sentence to be imposed on the offender?

8. Mitigating factor in favor of the Offender is his early guilty plea. Aggravating factors against him consist of the following:

1. Offence committed within a Correctional Services jail establishment;
2. His conduct exposes the jail establishment to potential security threats;
3. He is a convicted prisoner currently serving a jail term for the offence of Murder;
4. No remorse demonstrated by him; and
5. Contents of his post very offensive in nature.

9. Offences are ranged from serious to minor cases depending on the circumstances surrounding its commission. The maximum penalty is reserve for the worst kind of cases of the particular offence.

10. The offender’s case is not considered as a worst kind of case; however, it is serious because he is a convicted prisoner sentenced by the National Court for murder. He is due for release in two (2) months’ time. This shows the sentencing Judge’s emphasis on his rehabilitation as oppose to other purposes, for instance, retribution. He used the mobile phone to indulge in illicit social media activities, posting offensive posts and portraying an image inconsistent with the meaning and purpose of rehabilitation. In my humble view, the offender is not willing to be rehabilitated and find in himself a reason for life after prison.

11. Also, it is the Courts’ duty to portray to the general public the harsh reality of prison life, as a means of deterrent to would be offenders and to do justice to victims. Prisoners like the offender must understand that as prisoners they are not ordinary citizens, and are not supposed to live life normally. They are persons with limited rights living in a controlled environment. Use of everyday gadgets and participation on social media platforms are prohibited. It is my humble view, to allow such activities by prisoners would go to undermine the entire criminal justice system. Prison being the end of the system is not a holiday camp for offenders to have free meals and enjoy life ‘Ad arbitrium’ at the expenses of taxpayers. It is a place for reflection and self-realization of individual failures, it is a place for punishment of wrong doing, it is a place of limited rights and it is a place of seeking forgiveness as Christians. This must be clear to the public and the Courts are responsible for this.

12. I am of the opinion that a custodial sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offence and promote in the wider community trust in the criminal justice system. Maintaining of that trust requires a jail term between the ranges of 6 months to 1 year.

13. I note the offenders allegations against Prison Officers purported negligence and bias conduct regarding similar cases and consider it irrelevant for my consideration. I have no jurisdiction to deal with the offender’s complaint. I will only deal with the offence before me pursuant to the relevant legislation.

14. Taking into consideration all the factors and the circumstances of the offender’s case, I find it appropriate to impose a sentence of one (1) year imprisonment term in hard labor on the offender to be served forthwith cumulative (totality principle) to the remainder of his current jail term. I ask the offender to use this sentence to find his true purpose and meaning in life and also to come to terms with his wrong-doings.

15. The sentence of the Offender is a clear message to would be offenders to refrain from such conduct and to the community that we have a vibrant criminal justice system readily available to serve their interest.

16. This concludes the offender’s sentencing.