State v Ipata [1988] PGLawRp 21; [1988] PNGLR 34 (14 March 1988)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1988-89

[1988] PNGLR 34 - The State v Jeoff Ipata 

[1988] PNGLR 34

N658

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

THE STATE

V

JEOFF IPATA

Mount Hagen

Kapi DCJ

14 March 1988

CRIMINAL LAW - Practice and procedure - Plea of guilty - Not “admission” of any fact - Accused has option of admitting facts - Criminal Code (Ch No 262), s 589.

The Criminal Code (Ch No 262), s 589, provides that:

“An accused person may admit on the trial any fact alleged against him, and the admission is sufficient proof of the fact without any other evidence.”

Held

N1>(1)      A plea of guilty does not constitute an “admission” for the purposes of s 589 of the Criminal Code.

N1>(2)      After a plea of guilty has been taken an accused has the option of admitting any facts that may be alleged against him pursuant to s 589 of the Criminal Code and in accordance with the provisions of O 4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 1987.

Ruling on Evidence

On charges of false pretences the accused changed pleas of not guilty to pleas of guilty and the trial judge having read the depositions made the following ruling in relation to one of the charges which was not supported by any evidence in those depositions.

Counsel

K Bona, for the State.

E Kariko, for the accused.

14 March 1988

KAPI DCJ: The accused has been charged with four counts of obtaining goods by false pretences. In each case, it is alleged that he obtained goods by presenting cheques which were forged.

When he was first arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to all the counts. At the time of his plea, counsel for the accused indicated to the Court that his client denied that he was the person who presented these cheques.

The matter was adjourned to enable the lawyers to sort out the witnesses. When the case resumed and before the prosecutor called its first witness, counsel for the accused then applied to have his client change his pleas of not guilty to pleas of guilty. I indicated that the proper procedure was to rearraign the accused on all four counts. I rearraigned him again and he pleaded guilty to all the counts.

I entered provisional pleas subject to reading the depositions. In the depositions, there is evidence supporting the first, third and the fourth counts. I confirmed these pleas of guilty. However, in relation to the second count, there is no evidence to support the plea. The State allegation is that the accused presented a cheque which was false to one Philomina Khara, an employee of Wamp Supermarket thereby obtaining goods.

In his record of interview, the accused denied the charge. There is no statement from Philomina Khara. The summary of statements in the court depositions shows that this witness provided a written statement. Counsel for the State has made enquiries of the police and the court and found no such statement. This witness is no longer living in Mount Hagen. In view of the lack of evidence to support the plea, I pointed out to counsel the relevance of s 589 of the Criminal Code (Ch No 262):

“An accused person may admit on the trial any fact alleged against him, and the admission is sufficient proof of the fact without other evidence.”

As far as I am aware, this provision has not been the subject of decision in this jurisdiction. Both counsel have submitted that a plea of guilty under s 557 or s 560(2)(a) of the Code does not come within the meaning of “admission” as used in s 589 of the Criminal Code.

Where a person pleads guilty, the law is now clear that this does not result in automatic conviction. A plea is only entered provisionally subject to supporting evidence in the depositions. Consistent with this is s 563 of the Code where counsel may enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of his client. This is also consistent with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty: s 37(4) of the Constitution.

To interpret s 589 as applicable to a plea of guilty would also contravene s 37(10) of the Constitution. A person who is required to plead would provide evidence against himself. Section 589 is not applicable to a plea of guilty.

Admission of facts under s 589 is entirely optional. This option arises after the accused has been called upon to plead to the charge. Whether, in a plea of guilty or not guilty, the accused may then admit any fact that is alleged against him. The manner in which this may be done is now set out under O 4 of Criminal Procedure Rules 1987.

In the instant case, there is no evidence before me on the second count. It is now a matter for the accused under s 589 to admit the facts relating to the second count. If he elects to admit the facts, then by virtue of s 589, I can confirm the plea. If he elects not to admit, I would have no alternative but to enter a plea of not guilty and proceed to trial.

(The accused did not admit the facts and the State offered no evidence — He was acquitted.)

Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor.

Lawyer for the accused: Public Solicitor.