Police v Ruti [2021] PGDC 9; DC5062 (18 March 2021)

DC5062

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDICTION]

B. No 461 of 2021
BETWEEN

THE POLICE
Informant

AND

ELIS RUTI
Defendant

Boroko: S Tanei

2021: 18^th of March
      

SUMMARY OFFENCE – Unlawful Assault – s 6(3) – Summary Offences Act.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Sentence – Plea of Guilty – principles of sentencing discussed and considered – Unlawful Assault- Mitigating Factors considered – Imprisonment for 6 months.

Cases Cited

State –v- Dua (2013) PNGNC 8; N4957
National Fisheries Authority –v- Pais Taihu [2020] DC4075
Police –v- Aspi Awinjip [2009] DC936
Police –v- Marcus Kachau [2010] DC948
Police –v- Kavip Tetenge [2008] DC896

References

Legislation

District Courts Act 1963
Summary Offences Act 1977

Counsel

Constable Wilson Golina, for the Informant

The Offender in Person

RULING ON SENTENCE

18^th March 2021

S Tanei: The Offender, Elis Ruti pleaded guilty to one count of Unlawful Assault on 16^th March 2021.

2. The following is my ruling on sentence.

FACTS:

3. The Offender, Elis Ruti was charged with one count of Unlawful Assault under section 6 (3) of the Summary Offences Act 1977.

4. Elis Ruti pleaded guilty to the following facts;

5. On 9^th March 2021 at about 11.50 am, the Offender was at the Gerehu Police Station. There was a dispute between the Complainant and the Offender regarding the Complainant’s husband.

6. The Complainant was sitting in a chair in the Police Station when the Offender walked up to where the Complainant was sitting and hit her on her head with her string bag. Her string bad contained a tin can. The Complainant received a cut on her head and her head was bleeding as a result of being hit by the Offender.

7. The Complainant then lodged a Complaint and the Offender was arrested, cautioned, told of her rights and detained at the Boroko Cells.

ANTECEDENT REPORT

8. The Offender is 25 years old and hails from Kelua Village in Mt. Hagen, Western Highlands Province. She is single and resides at Tete Settlement, Gerehu, NCD. She is unemployed and has no prior convictions.

ALLOCOTUS:

9. During Allocotus, the Offender said “Meri ya sa suspect nating lo me so me belhat na paitim em”. “Me tok sorry lo kot”.

ISSUES:

10. The Court is faced with the following issues;

1. What is the sentence the Court should impose on the Offender?

THE LAW

11. Section 6 (3) of the Summary Offences Act 1977 provides that;

(3) A person who unlawfully assaults another person is guilty of an offence.

12. The Penalty provision in section 6 (3) has been amended by the Summary Offences Amended Act 2018. This offence now carries a penalty of A fine not exceeding K 4, 000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two (2) years.

SENTENCE
13. There are numerous cases that deal with this offence.

14. In deciding on the appropriate sentence the Court must be guided by sentencing principles.

15. I will adopt the decision making process applied by His Honour Justice Cannings in the case of State –v- Dua (2013) PNGNC 8; N4957 and His Worship Mr. Samuel Lavutul in the case of National Fisheries Authority –v- Pais Taihu [2020] DC4075. In those cases, the the following decision making process was used:

• step 1: what is the maximum penalty?
• step 2: what is a proper starting point?
• step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?
• step 4: what is the head sentence?
  

Step 1: what is the maximum penalty?

16. The maximum penalty provided for under the Act is a fine of K 4, 000.00 or 2 years imprisonment. This is reserved for the worst case scenario.

Step 2: what is a proper starting point?

17. In the cases provided above, the Court held that the proper starting point would be the mid-point since the Prisoner pleaded guilty.

18. In our case, the mid-point would be an amount of K 2, 000 fine or 1 year imprisonment.

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

19. It is important to look at the sentencing trends and similar cases when handing down the sentence.

20. In the case of Police –v- Aspi Awinjip [2009] DC936, the offender pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful assault. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, fully suspended and placed on Good Behaviour Bond.

21. In the case of Police –v- Marcus Kachau [2010] DC948, the offender pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful assault. He was given a sentence of 6 months imprisonment (wholly suspended with conditions). He was also ordered to pay Compensation pursuant to Section 6 (4) of the Summary Offences Act.

22. In Police –v- Kavip Tetenge [2008] DC896, the offender pleaded guilty to unlawful assault. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment in hard labour. The sentence was fully suspended with the offender placed on Good Behaviour Bond and the offender was also ordered to pay compensation to the victim.

Step 4: what is the head sentence?

23. The Offender pleaded guilty to the offence that she was charged with. Thus, it is only proper that the Court takes into account the mitigating and the aggravating circumstances.

24. The mitigating factors are;

1. Early guilty Plea
2. Expression of remorse

100. First time offender
     

25. The aggravating factors are;

1. She used force to attack the victim while the victim was defenceless.
2. The victim suffered cuts on her head and suffered bleeding on her head.
   

26. I note that there are more mitigating factors than aggravating factors.

27. Sergeant Wilson Golina of Police Prosecutions submitted that this particular offence is prevalent in society and the nature in which it was committed in this case is serious and the Court must impose a sentence to deter people from committing them.

28. The Prosecutor submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence the Court should impose a penalty of a fine of K500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. He also submitted that the Offender be ordered to pay compensation to the victim pursuant to Section 6 (4) of the Summary Offences Act.

29. While I uphold the submissions by the Prosecutor that the relevant sentence must be a deterrent sentence, I also note the fact that the sentence must follow appropriate sentencing guidelines. Sentences must be for the purpose of deterrence, separation, rehabilitation and retribution.

30. In response, the Offender submitted that she can pay compensation as submitted by the Prosecution.

31. I note that the Offence in this case is serious in that the victim suffered a cut on her head through use of force by the Offender. The offender is lucky not to have been charged under the criminal code for grievous bodily harm or another indictable offence.

32. The Offender’s mitigating factors work in favour of the Offender. She pleaded guilty early, she is a first time offender and she showed remorse. Also, she is willing to compensate the complainant.

33. Section 6 (4) of the Summary Offences Act allows for compensation to be made to the victim in Unlawful Assault Cases.
CONCLUSION

34. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, I find that the appropriate penalty would be imprisonment for a term of 6 months. Considering the mitigating factors, I suspend all of the sentence and the Offender will be placed on Good Behaviour Bond.

35. The Offender will also pay Compensation to the victim in the Sum of K 200 pursuant to section 6 (4) of the Summary Offences Act within 7 days.

SENTENCE

36. Elis Ruti, having pleaded guilty and being convicted of the offence of Unlawful Assault under section 6 (3) of the Summary Offences Act 1977 is sentenced to the following;

1. Six Months in prison in hard labour.
   
2. The pre-sentence period in custody of 9 days shall be deducted from the total sentence and the Offender shall serve five (5) months and twenty one (21) days of her sentence.
   
3. All of the Offender’s remaining Sentence of five (5) months and twenty one (21) days imprisonment is suspended and the Offender is put on Good Behaviour Bond.
   
4. The Offender shall pay the Complainant K 200 as compensation within seven (7) days. In default, the Offender shall be called to Court through a Warrant of Arrest to explain why she should not be imprisoned.
   
5. The matter shall return to Court on 29^th March 2021 at 9.30 am to check on compliance of Item 4 of these Court Orders.

Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions

Lawyer for the Offender: In Person