Police v David [2021] PGDC 5; DC3035 (15 March 2021)

DC3035

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

HELD AT

TARI DISTRICT COURT

In the Matter of Summary Offences Act

SUM NO. 66 OF 2021

Between:

THE POLICE

Informant

And:

MABERA DAVID

Defendant

Tari - His Worship Mr. E. Komia

02^nd March 2021, 05^th March 2021, 11^th March 2021 and 15^th March 2021

SUMMARY OFFENCE

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-– Offence of Knowingly in Possession of Dangerous Drugs-Dangerous Drugs Act Chapter 228, Part II, Control of Dangerous Drugs – Section 3 (1) (d)Mandatory Minimum Penalty of Three Months, Section 3 (1) (d) Dangerous Drug Act-Court to impose the minimum and then suspend or go higher as the justice of the case requires.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Guilty Plea- Sentencing and Courts exercise of the people’s power by virtue of section 158(1) of the Constitution - Need for proper Guidelines to be followed in the course of deciding appropriate sentence for purposes of Uniformity and Consistency-Appropriate sentence for Drug pushers as opposed to consumers - Circumstances when plea of guilt may be considered for a lighter sentence after allocatus, and in circumstances where the accused has been previously arrested and charged for the same offence and has failed to appear in Court.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Courts responsibility in ascertaining and confirming records of convict where there is no proper technology and record of offenders, especially in remote locations – sentencing guidelines are only guidelines for purposes of fairness – but where circumstance warrant maximum penalty, it should be applied given the circumstance of the case, and the communal status-quo.

Held;

1. Whilst an accused’s admission of the offence may be a mitigating factor, to give the accused the benefit of the doubt as per Yalibakut v The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890, the accused’s record of an arrest and previous charge of the same kind of offence arising out of different set of facts, does not necessarily mean that he should be given the benefit of the doubt, because, the Courts are bound by a Constitutional Philosophy and responsibility to make a decision that will be in the interest and aspirations of the people of Papua New Guinea as decided in Acting Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564, hence; it is important for the court to observe, that a prior arrest and charge of the same offence should be given consideration as an aggravating factor; despite the accused’s non-conviction of the prior arrest and charge for the same offence,
   
2. Whilst the Courts should not readily impose the maximum prescribed penalty as per Kandakasi J, in State v Mani [2002] PGNC 88; N2246 (21 May 2002), it should not mean that the highest penalty cannot be imposed on a convicted prisoner, rather, sentencing being a community responsibility, the Courts are bound under the Philosophy of the Constitution to be in touch with the aspirations and attitudes of the people of Papua New Guinea, and the punishment of criminals definitely has an effect on the ordinary people; Acting Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564, and as such, Courts must impose maximum penalties if, in the opinion of the Court, the offender is seen to be an offender whose imprisonment can be of deterrence to other similar offenders in the future.
   
3. Drug pushers and offenders are the worst kind of offenders, and should be treated in a manner befitting their status, Per Kaumi. M in Police v Sebi [2011] PGDC 45; DC 2033, and the usual purpose of criminal sentencing such as deterrence, restitution, or rehabilitation are also relevant factors for consideration and so are requirements to carefully consider and take into account the factors for and against a prisoner before sentencing him or her – Per Kandakasi J, in State v Jason Dongoma [2000] PGNC 76; N2038, hence; In sentencing for drug offences, a clear distinction should be made between persons engaged in drug trafficking and consumers, including addicts; for all traffickers, including youthful first offenders, the punishment should be particularly severe; for users, a substantial fine with imprisonment in default may often be adequate for first offenders.” Per Kearney DCJ in Cheong v Nemil [1981] PNGLR 472.
   
4. Where there is no proper records kept by the Police and the Courts in remote Districts and Provinces that lack proper digital technology to keep records of offenders, whether it is only a charge, or conviction, a Magistrate should be cautious in taking antecedent reports at face value, and need to ascertain if the record of prior convictions are true or false, and in doing so, the courts must reaffirm with the prosecution and the convicted prisoner in a fair and just manner whether that antecedent report is correct or not. Such reaffirmations must be done in a manner that is not incriminating and oppressive, so as to intimidate the convicted person.
   

Cases cited

Acting Public Prosecutor v Don Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC564 (27 August 1998)

Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (31 May 2005)

Saperus Yalibakut v The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 (27 April 2006)

State v Jason Dongoma [2000] PGNC 76; N2038 (13 December 2000)

State v Raka Benson [2006] PGNC 68; N4481 (17 August 2006)

State v. Samban [2007] PGNC 199; N4998 (11 May 2007)

State v Tele [2014] PGNC 341; N5802 (22 August 2014)

Police v Steven Kawage [1998] PGDC 10, (15 June 1998)

Akasiki v Auhova [2007] PGDC 134; DC700 (17 July 2007)

Police v. Lui Keisi [2009] PGDC 38; DC895 (2 June 2009)

Police v. Aulem [2011] PGDC 32; DC2024 (12 May 2011)

Police v Tobby [2011] PGDC 33; DC2019 (17 May 2011)

Police v. Nanai [2011] PGDC 35; DC2021 (17 May 2011)

Police v. Sebi & Ors [2011] PGDC 45; DC2033 (14 July 2011)

Kabilo v. Parengkuan [2008] PGDC 139; DC1025 (11 September 2008)

Police v. Aiye [2011] PGDC 41; DC2034 (27 June 20011)

Police v Bala Saol [2011] PGDC 43; DC2036 (8 July 2011)

Police v Nelson [2014] PGDC 8; DC4084 (27 February 2014)

Legislations

Summary Offences Act

Dangerous Drugs Act

Counsels

Police Prosecutor: Senior Sergeant Mr. Akaku

Counsels for the Defendant: in person

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a criminal matter under the Summary Offences Act involving the accused defendant who pleaded guilty. The accused defendant is charged the following information:

"Mabera David stand charged that he had in their possession to 299 packed rolls of dangerous drugs namely cannabis (marijuana) without authorization under the law, and thereby contravened s. 3(1)(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act.”

2. The police presented the information pursuant to section 3 (1) (d) of the Dangerous Drug Act, which states as follows;

Section 3. PRODUCTION, ETC., OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.

(1) A person who knowingly–

...................................................................

(d) is in possession of or conveys a dangerous drug or a plant or part of a plant from which a dangerous drug can be made,

is guilty of an offence unless he is authorized to do so by or under some other Act.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term of not less than three months and not exceeding two years.

BACKGROUND/ FACTS TO THE CHARGE

3. On 05^th March 2021 at around 8:40 am, the accused defendant was walking along the Kupari Road near Tari town, when Police stopped him and searched him. The police had initially arrested him and released him on bail, and were keeping an eye out for him, and suspected him of being in possession of illicit or illegal drugs. This led to the police confiscating 299 rolled packs of Marijuana (often called ‘one pack’ as Police put it). He was consequently arrested, told of his Constitutional Rights and detained in Tari Police Lockup Cells.

The accused appeared before this Court on 11^th March 2021 and, I entered a plea of guilty, after the court read the charges and asked to take his plea.

4. I entered a plea of guilty against the defendant.
5. Having satisfied myself upon reading the summary of facts, this court confirmed that there was enough evidence to support guilty plea given the accused defendant’s admittance and the exhibit of 299 rolled packs of cannabis that were presented before the Court. I then entered conviction against the accused defendant as charged by the Police Informant.
6. I now deliberate on the proper sentence that should be imposed on the offender.

ANTECEDENT REPORT

7. The Antecedent Report of defendant is that;

a. he is an adult, twenty seven (27) years of age

b. he is an unemployed person

b. he is married and has two children, and his wife is a subsistence farmer

8. At the time I read out the antecedent report, I enquired with the prosecutor if there were proper records kept by the police at Tari Police Station of offenders, and if it is safe for the Court to proceed on mere assertions. Whilst this may be an area of law that needs to be properly deliberated, I was sceptical of the antecedent report and asked the accused if he was initially convicted of an offence earlier. The accused stated that he was not convicted of any offence but, he was previously charged for the same offence, granted bail, but he never appeared in Court after being granted bail.
9. Whilst this court understands that the accused has never been convicted of any offence, the fact that he was once charged with the same offence rings a bell for this Court to be cautious when deliberating on the sentence. There is a want for proper records and information of offenders and convicted persons, and it is imperative that the provincial administration, the police, and the relevant statutory institutions must act on this issue. The administration of justice demands this to be so, and as such, the court must take precautionary measures to ensure that it is not misled of any bits of information required of an offender. Until such time the flaws are rectified, the courts face a challenge in administering a prudent discharge of justice without being misled.

ALLOCATUS

10. I later on administered the allocatus to the defendant, and gave him the opportunity to address the court on what he thinks should be considered by the Court in handing down the penalty for the offence he has committed. The accused said the following;

“I am sorry for what I have done and apologise to the Court”

11. The court notes the statement and will also consider that in its deliberation of this decision. In addition to this, such simple statement does not express remorse and feeling of criminal responsibility. It is only a mere statement, which is not connected to the feeling of criminal responsibility and the need to seek forgiveness from the society and the people, which are directly affected by this criminal conduct. I therefore think I cannot seriously consider this as a mitigating factor. The situation becomes more aggravating after the court learnt of the prior arrest and charge laid on the accused. He has not learnt his lesson, despite the police arrest, and subsequent bail.
12. What I don’t seem to understand from the defendant accused’s demeanour in court is that, he seems to be taking this Court as a joke.

SUBMISSION BY STATE

13. The State through the Police Prosecutor Mr. Akaku strongly submits that the Court must not be lenient in its sentencing because the defendant-accused has already been arrested and charged for the very same offence, but was not taken into Court to be penalized.
14. The prosecution also strongly submitted that the fact that most of the problems created in Hela Province are consequential to drug abuses fueled by such drug pushers or often known as “salesmen”, this court is now seized with the opportunity to make a decision that will act as deterrence to the wider Hela community.
15. All in all, the prosecution has asked this Court to give the maximum punishment, as this case warrants, because of the reasons that the accused has been caught the second time, and this time was brought before the court, and secondly because of the fact that the amount of cannabis that was in the accused’s possession was way too much, being 299 rolls of cannabis.
    

DEFENDANT-ACCUSEDS SUBMISSION

1. Defendant did not say anything.
   

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

16. The accused has pleaded guilty, and the Police have not contested the guilty plea, except for the fact that he has been honest to the Court and mentioned that he was initially charged for similar offence, but was released and never came to stand before the court. Whether he bought his way out of it, or whether it was merely a gross negligence on the part of the police is a matter that can never be ascertained. The only inference this court can draw is that, it was a gross negligence on the part of the police in their duties to the State. This is a problem that is disintegrating the very purpose of establishment of courts and police stations in and around the country. It must be given serious consideration.
17. Whilst the Court can give him the benefit of the doubt as is held in the Supreme Court Case of Saperus Yalibakut v The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 (27 April 2006) (per Jalina J; Mogish & Cannings.JJ ) I also ask myself, if his history for a similar offence can be an aggravating factor? I will address that shortly my discussion below under the heading of ‘decision making process.’

ISSUE

18. What is the appropriate sentence this Court should pass on the defendant?

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

19. His Honour Justice Canning's in the case of The State v Raka Benson (2006) CR 447 7 450, which has been adopted and applied in the case of Police v. Koni Sebi & Ors PGDC 45; DC 2033 (14 July 2011) set out the process in arriving at the appropriate decision for criminal cases concerning similar offence. I adopt and follow that step:
    

Step 1: what is the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament?

Step 2: what is a proper starting point?

Step 3: what are the type of sentencing guidelines and trends per judgments for this type of offence?

Step 4: what are the particular circumstances in which you committed this offence from which come the factors in your aggravation as well as those in your mitigation?

Step 5: what is the starting point for the Head sentence for the offence?

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

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY PARLIAMENT?

20. The accused is found guilty of an offence contrary to section 3(1) (d) of the Dangerous Drug Act, which prescribes the term to be not less than three months and not exceeding two years.

STEP 2: WHAT IS THE PROPER STARTING POINT?

21. In the present case, I follow the decision of Police v. Koni Sebi & Ors (supra) and I will also adopt the mandatory minimum penalty of 3 months as the starting point for the offence. In the Koni Sebi (supra) case, the court imprisoned the accused, Koni Sebi to ten months for being in possession of 53 rolls of marijuana pack was sentenced to ten months in Beon Prison Camp in hard labor, whilst the other co accused in that matter was Fabina Simon who had nine (9) rolls of Marijuana and was therefore sentenced to six months imprisonment in Beon in Hard Labor as well.
22. In all the cases concerning an offence of being in possession of illegal drugs (cannabis to be specific), the courts have sentenced offenders on various timeframe, but with the baseline of three months and over as is stipulated under s. 3 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
23. In this present case where the accused has been found guilty of being in possession of 299 rolls of Cannabis (Marijuana), this court is of the view that, it must form the baseline from nineteen months and decide between a sentence time between twelve and twenty four months. I will deal with the reasons for my baseline being at nineteen months in my reasonings below.
    

STEP 3: WHAT ARE THE TYPE OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND TRENDS PER JUDGEMENT FOR THIS TYPE OF OFFENCE?
SENTENCING TRENDS

24. I will adopt the sentencing trend initiated in the case of Koni Serbi (supra), and see the gravity of the offence and the volume of marijuana which I shall use to assist me in coming up with my decision, as I find it relevant to the circumstance in this proceeding. I would only make adjustments, and set the imprisonment term.
25. Almost all the relevant cases regarding possession of illegal drugs (cannabis), such as the case of Police v Steven Kawage [1998] PGDC 10, (15 June 1998), Akasiki v Auhova (2007] PGDC 134; DC700 (17 July 2007), Police v. Lui Keisi [2009] PGDC 38; DC895 (2 June 2009), Police v. Aulem [2011] PGDC 32; DC2024 (12 May 2011), Police v Tobby [2011] PGDC 33; DC2019 (17 May 2011), Police v. Nanai [2011][PGDC 35; DC2021 (17 May 2011), Police v. Sebi & Ors [2011] PGDC 45; DC2033 (14 July 2011), Kabilo v. Parengkuan [2008] PGDC 139; DC1025 (11 September 2008), Police v. Aiye [2011] PGDC 41; DC2034 (27 June 20011), Police v Bala Saol [2011] PGDC 43; DC2036 (8 July 2011), and Police v Nelson [2014] PGDC 8; DC4084 (27 February 2014), and many other authorities all unanimously set the baseline for the sentencing of a convicted offenders starting point at three months, and then depending on the number of packs, or its mass, coupled with the demeanor of the convicted persons, lean towards custodial sentence. Nevertheless, there is no set baseline for the number of packs or mass of the illegal drugs (marijuana) that would attract penalty sentencing time.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

26. I am of the view that, in Hela Province, given the increase in law and order issues, and break down in the moral and ethical values of the society, this court must come down hard on drug traffickers and dealers. The problems escalating in our society is primarily as a result of the abuse of drugs, such as cannabis (marijuana), illegally brewed alcohol (home brew) and alcohol. I am fortified that, this court is not limited to impose the maximum penalty of two years.
27. Should I impose a lesser sentence of up twelve months? I do not think that would be a deterrence to the other drug pushers and dealers as they are contributing to the aggravated abuse of drugs. In my view, a lesser sentence would not be a preferable example to deter such illicit activities and sale from occurring. I must impose the maximum. As I alluded to earlier, I have cited the relevant cases above that established guidelines, but not in a more uniform manner, and I am minded to set a maximum sentence for persons who are in possession of more than 100 rolls. In this case, it is 299 rolls. As His Worship Kaumi. M (as he then was) adopted the principles in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC 789 (31 May 2005), and applied it in the case of Police v Bala Saol [2011] PGDC 43; DC2036 (8 July 2011), which stated:

...I also bear in mind that the determination of appropriate punishment for a particular case is an exercise of judicial discretion, the process involving the consideration of such factors as:-

(i). the seriousness of the offence;

(ii). the gravity or otherwise of the offence;

(iii).the personal circumstances of the defendant which aggravate or mitigate the punishment;

(iv). the interests of the community in ensuring the punishment achieves its purposes

28. In considering the above, and the legislative penalties to be imposed on offenders such as the accused herein, I am of the view that, whilst I agree with the courts view of imposing the penalties from a baseline of three months, it is not setting uniformity in the sentencing regime that would reciprocate the quantity of illegal drugs. As such I am minded to establish and, follow a formula in deriving the appropriate time to be served in prison. I am of the fortified view that lesser amount of marijuana should attract higher jail time so it can act as a deterrence, until such time the legislature decides to amend and lift the jail time. More time must be given for lesser amount of illegal drugs.

STEP 4: WHAT ARE THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH YOU COMMITED THE OFFENCE FROM WHICH COME THE FACTORS IN YOUR AGGRAVATION AS WELL AS THOSE IN YOUR MITIGATION?

29. The pertinent question that needs to be also answered herein is the issue of whether there are more aggravating circumstances as opposed to the mitigating factors (vice versa) and the proper sentence to be imposed in the light of that assessment. Cannings.J in Raka Benson [2006] PGNC 68; N4481 (17 August 2006) which was adopted and applied in Police v Sebi [2011] PGDC 45; DC2033 by His Worship, Kaumi.M, and in his other similar judgments concerning drug traffickers and consumers, and I lean to the methodology as relevant guidelines in our jurisdiction and apply it in this matter.
30. These considerations are as follows:

(i). Was only a small amount of dangerous drug involved? No, there were 299 rolls of cannabis.

(ii). Did the offender's actions have only a small adverse effect on other persons eg: the members of his family and his community? No. Drug has a very significant impact in the breakdown of discipline and good order of the society.

(iii). Did the offence take place over a short period and not involved a pre-meditated, cunning plan of deceit? No, the offence involved a pre-mediated and cunning plan to sell cannabis and did not take place over a short period. He has been selling the drug for a long time. He was caught once and he managed to escape.

(iv). Did the offender give himself up before being detected? No, he was observed by police and given his history of selling drugs, he was searched and later arrested and charged, after finding him in possession of 299 cannabis rolls.

(v). Has the defendant pleaded guilty? Yes, he pleaded guilty

(vi). Has the offender genuinely expressed remorse? No, his comments were all self centered and he never any expressed genuine remorse for his actions when given the opportunity to do so. All he said was, “I say sorry to this Court.”

(vii). Is this the defendant's first offence? No, he was once arrested and charged for the same offence but he managed to escape the hearing, and given the fact that a proper record has not been kept, it was difficult to follow up on the charges and prosecute. At this juncture, it calls for Police Force and the District Courts to have proper records of persons who are charged and detained so it reflects well on the database. Technologies such as fingerprints and other measures must be set in place to combat regular petty offenders (felons).

(viii). I also find the defendant in his allocatus that he was drug pusher in other words selling marijuana to people in his community and his involvement in this of his community.

(ix). Is the defendant a person of good health both physically and mentally? Yes.

(x). Has the offender and his family already paid a heavy price for his actions? No

(xi). Can the defendant be regarded as a youthful offender? No, he is an adult offender.

(xii). Are there any other circumstances of this particular offence or the offender that warrant mitigation of the head sentence? No

(xiii). Is this offence not a prevalent one? No, it is a prevalent one

(xiv). Do these types of offences not have an adverse effect on the community at large? No, they do have an adverse effect on the community at large. It is the cause of law and order problems and fights in the province. Young adolescences and adults who smoke marijuana, supplied by such perpetrator as this man, have limited reasoning capacity and resort to violence, and is a major cause of unrest in the civil Hela community.

31. Having regard to those points highlighted above, what would the starting point for the sentencing be?

STEP 5: WHAT IS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE HEAD SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCE?

32. In this circumstance where the offender has in his possession, I would set the following criteria in order to give a proper sentencing guideline for similar cases which the courts might be faced in the future. The following would be my starting point for head sentence of the offence, relating to the quantity of the illegal drugs the offender possess at the time of his arrest and charge. These are as follows:

1 to 10 packs - three months or suspended sentence and GBB

11 to 20 packs - between three and six months in light labor

21 to 50 packs - between seven and twelve months in hard labor

51 to 99 packs - between thirteen months and eighteen months in hard labor

100 and over - between nineteen months to twenty four months in hard labor

33. With the above starting points with respect to the quantity according to my categorization above, I set the total potential sentence starting point at nineteen months. I am therefore of the view that the proper sentence regime would attract a time between nineteen and twenty four months, which is the maximum penalty.

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

34. In consideration of whether or not all or part of the head sentence should be suspended or not, I consider some principles of sentencing that are relevant to this issue in the preceding paragraphs, I have discussed and, I am of the view that this court must not be lenient on drug pushers in Hela, especially after the court is aware of the problems drug has caused in the province, and the country as a whole.
35. Whilst the courts observe that in sentencing is that, the usual purpose of criminal sentencing such as deterrence, restitution, or rehabilitation are also relevant factors for consideration and so are requirements to carefully consider and take into account the factors for and against a prisoner before sentencing him or her,’^[1]‘the Courts are bound under the philosophy of the Constitution to be in touch with the aspirations and attitudes of the people of PNG and the punishment of criminals definitely has an effect on the ordinary people’^[2] Courts must be wary of the negative impact such offences have had, currently have and will have on the community, and as such, it has a constitutional duty to protect the society from such offenders who contribute to the detriment of the society, ‘
36. Suspended sentence is a form of punishment the courts impose on offenders. This is when the pre-sentence report and the antecedent report become useful for the purposes of guiding the court to visualize if there are any alternate forms of punishment the offender can be given without having to go to prison. Nevertheless, it is settled law that the court is not bound to accept and follow recommendations of a presentence report, or antecedent report in this matter. The State v. Masa (20/12/00); per Kandakasi J in State v. Ilomo [2003] PGNC 77; 2420 (1 May 2003) underlining mine.
37. “Once a person is found to be guilty of a crime, the onus is on him to show by appropriate evidence that he should not be given the maximum prescribed sentence. This follows from my view that the presumption of innocence under the Constitution applies only up to the point when guilt or innocence is decided against an accused person. For the protection is in terms of an accused person being “presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.” Where a prisoner fails to do that, it means he has no reason to expect a sentence other than the maximum” - per Kandakasi J; The State v Andrew Yeskulu- [2003] PGNC 88; N2410 (24 April 2003).
38. At this juncture, I also am of the critical view that, it is time the legislature should start amending the laws, to increase the penalty from minimum of three months to three years, and two years maximum to five or seven years, as this illicit drug, marijuana is a major cause of the break down in general discipline, ethical and moral conduct of the civil society. Thiw in my view will come down hard on drug pushers and sellers, and consumers alike as deterrence to the abuse of marijuana in Papua New Guinea. Whilst that is to be done, the Courts must come down hard on such person who push and sell drugs. The method which is more convenient in circumstances were drug abuse lead to a high rate law and order problems would be to increase the number of term for imprisonment, on a lesser amount of marijuana so as to deter possible offenders in the future.
39. Finally, I refer to the case of Cheong v Nemil [1981] PGNC 64; [1981] PNGLR 472; N340 (M) His Honor Kearney DCJ held that:

“In sentencing for drug offences, a clear distinction should be made between persons engaged in drug trafficking and consumers, including addicts; for all traffickers, including youthful first offenders, the punishment should be particularly severe; for users, a substantial fine with imprisonment in default may often be adequate for first offenders.”

40. In the light of all the above discussions, I am of the view that the quantity of the illegal drug, coupled with the non-responsible attitude of the defendant, and his history as a drug dealer, salesman or drug pusher, makes me shy away from imposing non-custodial sentence but, rather lean towards the severest punishment as I have set out above. I therefore sentence the defendant as this case permits in its distinct circumstance and setting.

SENTENCE

41. This Court having found Mapera David guilty of knowingly being in possession of a dangerous drug, known as Cannabis, without any lawful authority, you are sentenced in the following manner:

(a) You are sentenced to twenty four months imprisonment, in hard labor.

(b). I order that you serve the term in Buyepi Correctional Institute.

Police Prosecution for the State
Defendant in Person
BY THE COURT
His Worship Mr. Edward A. Komia

---

^[1] Per Kandakasi J, State v Jason Dongoma [2000] PGNC 76; N2038 (13 December 2000)

^[2] Acting Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564