Police v Seki [2021] PGDC 36; DC5092 (12 May 2021)

DC5092

Papua New Guinea

[In the Criminal Jurisdictions of the District Court Held at Waigani]

SITTING IN ITS TRAFFIC JURISDICTION

WTC NO 117 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
[Informant]

AND:

KARI SEKI
[Defendant]

His worship Paul P Nii

12^st May 2021

TRAFFIC OFFENCE: - Negligent Driving Causing Injury - s 40(2)(b) - Road Traffic Act -Road User Rules 2017

TRAFFIC OFFENCE- Arraignment- Plea of Guilty-Reading of Charges, Antecedent Report.

PNG Cases cited:
Police v Waimen [2010] PGDC 4; DC957

Overseas cases cited:
Ni

References

Legislation
Road Traffic Act-Road User Rules 2017

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: J Wamuru For the Informant
In person For the Defendant

RULING ON SENTENCE

12^th May 2021

INTRODUCTION

NII, P Magistrate: The Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of Negligent Driving Causing Injury pursuant

to Section 40(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act-Road User Rules 2017.

1. On 11^th May 2021, Defendant was arraigned by the court and subsequently decided to plead guilty for the charge and this is my ruling on sentence.
   

FACTS

2. Defendant was arrested in April 2021 for the allegation of Negligent driving causing injury. Police say on 3^rd March 2021, at Korobosea drive in National Capital District, Papua New Guinea:
   

“The Defendant being the driver of a motor vehicle towit a Nissan Navara Utility D/Cab White Registration Number BFX 699 upon a public Street, towit Korobosea Drive did drive the said vehicle in a manner that was negligent whereby bad injury was caused to a Sharon Kakas”

3. Defendant’s case was first mentioned on 3th May 2021 but he was not present and thus adjourned to 11^th May 2021 where he was arraigned. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of Negligent driving causing injury after being arraigned. Defendant conserved his guilty plea after statement of facts was read and subsequently his antecedent report was read to the court. Upon taking the plea of guilty by the Defendant the Defendant is found guilty by the court and thus my ruling on sentence.
   

ISSUE

4. The only issue would be on impartial and reasonable sentence in the circumstance
   

RELEVANT LAWS

5. The Law under which the Defendant is arrested is in the subsequent terms:
   

40. CARELESS AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

(2) A person who drives a motor vehicle in a careless or negligent manner on a public street that causes

(b) a fatal injury to another person, is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K 10,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or both

ANTECEDENT REPORT

6. Prosecutor has read to the court the Defendant’s Antecedent Report. The court was told that the Defendant resides at Korobosea in the nation’s capital and he is employed at the Port Moresby General Hospital as a medical Doctor. The court was further told that he earns an evenhanded salary package and he has no previous records of offences or convictions against his name.

RULING

7. Different offences attract different penalties under the Summary Offences Act, Road Traffic Act, Criminal Code Act and any other Laws that administers Criminal conducts and happenings. A penalty or sentence awarded by the court parallels to the nature and aggravating factors before the court. Before I proceed to the sentencing I must be cautiously guided by the Antecedent report. I must decide on the particulars concerning the defendant's personality, upbringing, and circumstances in which the crime is established by the confirmation of evidence.
   
8. I will adapt the principle of his worship J Kaumi in Police v Waimen [2010] PGDC 4; DC957, that mitigating factors should out weight the aggravating factors if a lesser penalty is to be given against the Defendant or vice versa. However, mitigating factors are not defenses or excuses for the charge of which the defendant pleaded guilty but are factors that, operates in impartiality and kindness, incline either to extenuate or decrease the defendant's culpability for the offense or otherwise deliver a cause for a justifiable sentence in the circumstance. His worship J Kaumi in the case has given due consideration to the Defendant who was a first time offender who pleaded guilty after arraignment. The court then placed a fine and ordered him a non-custodial sentences. In the case, the mitigating factors has dwarfed the aggravating factors and hence his worships ruling. I will consider this principle in the current case involving the Defendant.
   
9. In the current case the Defendant is a medical Doctor who saves life at Port General Hospital and he plays an essential role as in far as life or death is concern. Doctors are answerable for amplified life expectation and enhanced welfare in society. Individuals who subsist illnesses such as Malaria, Typhoid and other diseases habitually be indebted their existence to doctors, whose services and commitment are important for the patients’ treatment and cure.
   
10. I am also satisfied that the Defendant is a first time offender or someone that does not come into conflict with the laws in his life. He also has a big family and has saved court’s time by taking the early plea than going to trial. Moreover, Defendant was being honest about his actions which was the subject of this proceeding. Honesty is not just about expressing the verity but there is more to it. It's about being genuine with oneself and people around you or others about who really you are, it a true definition of oneself and not many people turn up to this reality but one few does and hence the Defendant. It refines people’s opinions and permits them to detect things around them with precision.
    
11. Given the circumstances and adapting the principles in Police v Waimen case and the penalty prescribed for the offence of Negligent Driving Causing Injury under Section 40(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, I am satisfied that the mitigating facts out weight the aggravating factors.
    

COURT ORDER

1. The Defendant is guilty but discharged with no new penalties
   
2. In the exercising of my sentencing discretion, I will order that Defendant’s bail is converted to court fine.
   

Police Prosecutor: J Wamuru For the Informant
In person For the Defendant