Police v Mundu [2022] PGDC 93; DC9033 (11 March 2022)

DC9033

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
DC Com NO: 17 /2022.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

POLICE/STATE.
Informant.

AND.

ALEX MUNDU
Defendant

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2022: March 11^th.

CRIMINAL LAW. Practice and Procedure-Sentencing after conviction on trial.
-Circumstantial Evidence- Homemade gun found in the front cabin of Flat- top PMV Truck as well as Defendant who is found seated in front of the vehicle, wherein Witnesses state that he took the gun into the cabin. Circumstantial Evidence is affirmed.
-Sentencing after conviction on trial,

Cases Cited:
Paulus Pawa v. State [1981] PNGLR 498.

References:
Summary offences Act 1977
Summary offences (Amendment) Act 2018.

Representation;
Defendant appears in Person
Sergeant K. Haira for the Police/State.

RULING ON SENTENCE.

Background.

1. The Defendant was convicted after Trial on one count of Possession of a Firearm, namely a Home-made Shot gun, that on the 25/02/22 along the Kikiri highway near Popondetta in the Northern Province, the Defendant was caught by Police whilst being in possession of an Offensive Weapon namely 1 x homemade gun contrary to Section 12(1) of the Summary Offences Act as read in conjunction with Section 11 of the Summary Offences (Amendment) Act of 2018.
   
2. Trial commenced in the matter on the 11/03/22 and the Police called 3 x witnesses namely Maxton Kimana the Driver of ‘Bubuman’ PMV Flat-top truck, 1^st Constable Jeff Handau and Constable Ahmed Nago the Informant.
   
3. The Prosecutions contentions borne out by their Evidence is simply the Defendant and Two other boys held up the said Maxton Kimana and his Bubuman truck along the Kikiri highway and got on the vehicle to go to the coast and to return.
   
4. The got on and the defendant forced himself into the front of the vehicle whilst his friends got on the back and also the defendant took the Gun into the front cabin and put it behind the seats in front.
   
5. On the way back at road 7 in Sorovi, Police Blocked the road and upon Searching the vehicle from the Defendant and the Homemade Gun in front.
   
6. The defendant was arrested with being in possession of the homemade firearm.
   
7. In his Defense the Defendant gave an unsworn Statement from the Defendants Dock and chose not to call witnesses to support his Defense.
   
8. In his Defense, the Defendant insisted that the Gun was found in the vehicle but not on his person.
   

Observations /Assessments.

9. The Defendant generally denied the Offence and insisted the gun was not taken from his person but from inside the vehicle.
   
10. He however fell short of suggesting that the Homemade gun was owned by others including the Driver and or the Crew of the PMV or other persons.
    
11. Regardless of his insistence of his innocence, the Court observes as follows that;
    
    1. He being from the Hela Province was found in the front cabin of the ‘Bubuman’ Truck’, even though he is obviously not related to the Crew or Owner(s) of the Truck.
       
    2. How and why he was seated at front is not explained by the Defendant.
       
    3. From observing his demeanor and arguments, he was more or less arguing semantics regarding the ‘letter of the Law’ that Technically the Homae-made Firearm was not on his person when discovered.
       
    4. However the fact remains that someone was in control of the firearm at the time and conveyed that firearm from somewhere into the cabin of the truck after the Truck was stopped by men along the Kikiri Road.
       
    5. It just so happens that the Defendant somehow ended up in the cabin of the ‘Bubuman’ truck and somehow the homemade as well.
       
    6. After hearing the Evidence, as per the Principel of Circumstantial Evidence in the case of Paulus Pawa v. State, the only Logical Hypothesis this court could draw on the evidence was that the Defendant was the one that brought this Homemade firearm into the Trucks cabin when he got on along the Kikiri road, and no one else therefore he was in control of the firearm therefore Legally in possession of the same.
       
    7. On that basis the Defendant was found Guilty as charged.
       

SENTENCE:

12. The Charge for which the Defendant/Prisoner is convicted has penalty prescribed as follows under the 2018 Amendment No: 07; ‘’Fine or K4000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.’
    
13. In considering Sentence for the Defendant, the court makes the following observations;
    
    1. The Defendant would have been better served by an early plea of guilty rather than taking this court on a protracted trial on the basis of his desire to argue semantics over the technical issue of Possession.
       
    2. Prevalence of the Offence of Possession of Offensive weapons. Oro Province is losing its grip on ‘Law and order’ right before our very eyes because of various reasons, maybe due to the lack of (1) Vigilance on the part of the Law and Justice Sector, (2) disinterest from Provincial Government and Administration, (3) shortage of Man-power with the Police or a (4) sense of ‘bravado and freedom to do as they will’ by young men and youths because of the apparent (5) lack of urgency on the part of society at large to reign in these criminal tendencies.
       
    3. The highways and bi-ways of the Northern Province and Papua New Guinea as a whole is not there for Criminal minded people to do as they please and terrorized the travelling public.
       
    4. The fact that there was no ammunition in the gun when he was caught is held in his favour.
       
    5. This is a case in which a ‘New start’ on Law and Order adherence and deterrence can be ushered in for the Oro Province as a whole.
       
    6. Criminal Minded people should not hold sway over our Highways and Bi-ways and I refuse to allow this Province and Papua New Guinea as a whole to descend into anarchy whilst I am available to do something about it.
       
14. Accordingly, the Defendant is Sentenced as follows
    
    1. Fine Imposed in the sum of K3000.00.
       
    2. In default of fine, the Defendant is to serve two years in hard labour at Biru Correctional Services Goal.
       
    100. Time spent is custody of 21 days is to be deducted from the head sentence of 2years if he is not able to meet the requisite Court Fine amount.
         
    4. Balance of 1 year 11 months and 1 week to be served in hard Labour.
       

Police Prosecutions for the State.
Defendant in person.