Police v Arua [2021] PGDC 99; DC6054 (26 July 2021)

DC6054

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDICTION
B. No 865 of 2021
C.B. No. 1502 of 2021

BETWEEN

THE POLICE
Informant

AND

BELINDA ARUA
Defendant

Boroko: Seth Tanei

2021: 26^th of July

SUMMARY OFFENCE –– Damaging Property – s 47(2) – Summary Offences Act 1977.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Sentence – Plea – Damaging Property - principles of sentencing discussed and considered –Fine of K 200 – Compensation of K 100.

Cases Cited

Police v Howigo [2021] PGDC 25; DC50812,
Police –v- Lapasuma [2003] PGDC 26; DC313
Yalibakut –v- The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 SC890
State –v- Dua [2013] PGNC 8; N4957
State v Sapik Tommy N5647" title="View LawCiteRecord" class="autolink_findcases">[2014] PGNC; N5647

References
NIL

Legislation

Summary Offences Act 1977
Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 2018

Counsel

Constable Tarabbie Agu, for the Informant

The Offender in Person

RULING ON SENTENCE

26^th July 2021

S Tanei: The Offender, Belinda Arua, was charged with the offence of Damaging Property under section 47(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1977.

2. She pleaded guilty on 17^th June 2021 and submissions on sentence were made on 19^th July 2021 after a number of adjournments.

3. The following is my ruling on sentence.

FACTS:

4. The following are the facts to which the Offender pleaded guilty to.

5. On 25^th May 2021, the Complainant returned home from work and without any reason the Offender started arguing with him. While arguing, the Offender damaged a glass cup valued at K5 and a wooden door incise valued at K48.00. The total value of the property destroyed stood at K53.
   
6. The victim laid a Complaint at the Boroko Police Station and the Offender was apprehended at their home at Gordons Industrial area and brought to the police station where she was interrogated, arrested and charged.
   

ANTECEDENT REPORT

7. The Offender is 25 years old and hails from Domara Village, Abau, Central Province. She is married with one child and resides at Gordons Industrial area. She is unemployed and has no prior convictions.

ALLOCOTUS:

8. During Allocotus, the Offender said she already committed the Offence. She asked for leniency from the Court. She also stated that she has a baby.

ISSUES:

9. The Court is faced with the issue of what penalty it should impose on the offender.

THE LAW:

10. The Offender was charged under section 47 (2) of the Summary Offences Act 1977. Section 47 (2) provides that;

“(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, destroys, damages or injures any property belonging to another person is guilty of an offence.”

11. This offence carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding K 4, 000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years under Section 46 of the Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 2018.

PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
12. I adopt the decision making process applied by His Honour Justice Cannings in the case of State –v- Dua [2013] PGNC 8; N4957 and State v Sapik Tommy N5647" title="View LawCiteRecord" class="autolink_findcases">[2014] PGNC; N5647 where 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 other sentences have been imposed recently for equivalent offences?

Step 4: what is the head sentence?

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY?

13. The maximum penalties provided for under the Act is a fine of K 4, 000.00 or 2 years imprisonment. However, that is reserved for the worst case scenario.

STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT?

14. In many cases where the Offender pleaded guilty, the Courts held that the proper starting point would be the mid-point.

15. This means that in this matter, the starting point would be K 2, 000 fine or 1 year imprisonment.

16. It is also important to consider the sentencing trends in similar cases when considering the Starting Point.

STEP 3: WHAT SENTENCES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR EQUIVALENT OFFENCES?

17. I have not been able to locate many written precedents that dealt with this particular offence.

18. The following are cases dealt with the offence of Damaging Property.

19. In Police –v- Lapasuma [2003] PGDC 26; DC313, the offenders were found guilty of damaging property, a house. They were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment each (fully suspended) and were ordered to pay compensation to the victim in the sum of K 200 each.

20. In the case of Police v Howigo [2021] PGDC 25; DC50812, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of damaging property, among other charges. He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, fully suspended and ordered to pay a fine of K 200.

21. In the reported cases above, the sentences ranged from 3 months imprisonment to 9 months imprisonment and fines of K 200 depending on the circumstances of each case.

STEP 4: WHAT IS THE HEAD SENTENCE?

22. I apply the principle in Yalibakut –v- The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 where it was held that the Offender must be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating factors in cases where the Offender pleaded guilty. In doing so, I must consider the mitigating factors as well as the aggravating factors.

23. The following are the mitigating and aggravating factors.

24. The mitigating factors are;

1. Early Guilty Plea
2. She is a first time offender.

100. She expressed remorse.
     

25. The aggravating factors are;

1. Her actions were unprovoked
2. She used violence
   

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

27. In submissions on sentence, Constable Tarrabie Agu of Police Prosecutions submitted that this offence is serious and is prevalent and the Court must impose a sentence that will deter people from committing them. He submitted that the Court must impose a sentence of 9 months imprisonment to deter the Offender from Committing the Offence again in the future or others from committing this offence.

28. I note from the facts of this matter that the property that the Offender damaged were a glass cup and a wooden item both valued at a total of K 53.00. That, in my view is not a substantial amount of money.

29. However, that does not excuse the offender from doing what she did. Any action that breaches the law is illegal and the Offender must be punished pursuant to the law. I have stated it many times in my judgements that violence does not solve any dispute. There are better alternatives to settling disputes that the use of violence. In this case, the issue between the victim and the Offender would have been better solved if they talked this over or involved the use of counsellors or their family members to help them resolve their differences. The use of violence or violent conduct only creates more problems.

30. It is my view that this offence does not fall under the worst case scenario. I take into account the mitigating factors in this case. The offender pleaded guilty early and saved the Court time, she expressed remorse and she is a first time offender. I also note that the value of property damaged is not substantial. It is only K 53.00. For the purpose of retribution, the Court is empowered under Section 47(3) of the Summary Offences Act 1977 to order Offenders in such a case to repay the victim compensation the value of the property that was damaged.

31. In her submissions on sentence, the Offender asked for leniency. She also told the Court that she has a Baby that needed her presence. She also stated that since the Offence, she has moved out and has not been living together with the victim. I have enquired into this and have received confirmation from the Prosecution that the victim and the Offender are not living together and that the Offender has a baby to look after.

32. Given all the above factors and considerations, I am of the view that the Offender should be given a non-custodial sentence.

33. I therefore sentence the offender to pay a fine of K 200.00

34. Pursuant to section 47 (3) of the Summary Offences Act 1977, the Offender shall pay the victim compensation in the sum of K 100.

CONCLUSION

35. With due consideration of all the factors, the Offender shall be Ordered to pay a fine of K 200.

36. The Offender shall also pay the victim Compensation in the sum of K 100.

SENTENCE

37. The following is the sentence of the Court;

1. Belinda Arua, having pleaded guilty and being convicted of the offence of Damaging Property under Section 47(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1977 is to pay a fine of K 200.00.
   
2. Pursuant to Section 47(3) of the Summary Offences Act 1977, the Offender shall pay the victim Compensation in the sum of K 100.00.
   
3. The Offender’s Bail of K 300 shall be dealt with in the following manner;
   
   1. K 200 is forfeited and converted to Court fine.
   2. K 100.00 is converted to Compensation and shall be paid to the victim (Jim Wazzu) as compensation.
      

Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions

Lawyer for the Offender: In Person