State v Pera [1989] PGNC 7; N758 (22 May 1989)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N758

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
-V-
JOHN PEP PERA

Goroka

Brunton AJ
22 May 1989

CRIMINAL LAW - Criminal Code s 351(1) - abduction of 15 year old girl for 3 month period - Plea of guilty.

Sentence:

Twelve months in hard labour to be served consecutively, to sentences passed by other court.

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

BRUNTON AJ:

THE OFFENCE AND PLEA

The prisoner pleaded guilty to an indictment charging an offence under s 351(1) of the Criminal Code that he abducted a girl, Siripia Afomane who was about fifteen years of age and unmarried, away from her family against the will of the girl’s father.

THE FACTS

On the 5th January, 1987 the girl Siripia Afomane, who had recently left school, came from her home near Chuave in the Simbu Province, with her parents, to Goroka in search of job. She lodged an application for employment with a local firm and was told to wait for a response. By the middle of March, 1987 her mother had gone home, and she and her father lived at Kama in her aunty’s house. The father appears to have been staying at this house and also at the house of the local member for Parliament.

After the mother left, Siripia met the prisoner John Pep Pera at the Kama market where she helped her aunty sell betel-nut. John told Siripia that he was a policeman on transfer from Port Moresby and asked if she could find him somewhere to stay. Although Siripia later found out that he was not a policeman, John was able to begin to live in the Aunty’s house, and after a week began to have a love affair with Siripia. Siripia’s father claimed he did not know what was going on.

Eventually the prisoner decided to leave Goroka for his home outside Mt. Hagen, and asked Siripia to give him a hand with his luggage to the market. At the market the prisoner was able to get Siripia to board the bus to Mount Hagen with him.

The facts presented by the State Prosecutor say that Siripia went on the bus willingly, although in her statement on the committal proceedings she said she was pulled. While I accept the Prosecutor’s version of this, I note the consequence that Siripia’s original version must be considered as untrue.

The prisoner took Siripia to his village outside Mount Hagen where they lived together as man and wife. There was a period in which Siripia was relatively contended to stay with John. It was said that John even took her down the Okuk Highway to see her parents in Goroka, but she refused to visit them. However, John began to bring other women to the village, and when this happened Siripia demanded to go home. John refused to let her go, and she was kept for about two and half months in the village against her will. Siripia alleged in her statement to the police, that he handcuffed her, and that she managed to break the handcuffs. This appears to be unlikely, and is another indication of Siripia not telling the whole truth.

Eventually Siripia got word to a clansman who was working on a nearby tea plantation to tell her father where she was. Siripia’s parents had been searching up and down the Okuk Highway for her. Her father contacted a friend he had in the Mount Hagen Police Station, and together they went and got Siripia from John’s village. She appears to have been happy to have gone home with them. As a consequence of the father going to the village, the prisoner was arrested and charged.

In the circumstances, the prisoner could well have been charged with various offences of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, had not the prosecution thought it may have had difficulties negativing the statutory defence for that offence. Although Siripia was about fifteen at the time of the offence, I was informed she had the appearance and demeanour of an older girl. It appears to be for this reason that the prisoner was charged with the lesser offence of abduction, which carries a maximum penalty of two years, rather than the more serious offence of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, which carries a maximum penalty of five years.

THE PRISONER

John Pep Pera is twenty-four years old, and for the purposes of sentence on this offence he is a first offender. At present he is serving a three year sentence for a robbery, which was committed after this offence. He has escaped from custody after being arrested on this charge, and has served a two month sentence for that offence. Although Mr. Kot, counsel for John, did not mention it, the Pre-Sentence Report shows him as being married with one child. As that report has not been verified with the prisoner’s clansmen, due to time factors and the distance involved, I do not intend to rely on it.

The prisoner appears to me to have been something of trickster; he got himself into the Aunty’s house, and into Siripia’s bed through a combination of lies and no doubt chalm. I assume in his favour that Siripia fell for his advances and went to John’s village willingly. But that does not help him. S 351(1) of the Code is in the way of a strict liability offence. It is there to protect young girls from their own indiscretion, as much as from the unmastered importunity of young men.

When confronted with Siripia’s desire to go home, if he had been genuine in his affections, he would have let her go. I tend not to believe him when he says through his Counsel that he took Siripia down to Goroka to see her parents, but she did not want to make the visit, and so they went to Lae instead. Just as Siripia’s story is not totally true, I tend to believe John only when I can verify what he asserts.

THE SENTENCE

The maximum sentence for this offence is 2 years. The facts in this case do not reveal what is known as a “worst case”. On the other hand, the separation of the girl from her parents was not merely brief - as over a weekend, or for a few days. She was gone from them for three and half months; she lived with the prisoner rather like a concubine, force, or the implication of force was present for part of that stay. I do not regard the acts of the prisoner as being positioned towards the lower end of permissible range.

There are a large number of sexual offences against women and young girls in this part of country. The general attitude of many men, both young and older, towards women is exploitative. Sentencing for this type of sexual offence, which involves the protection of young girls, needs to be firm enough to make the point to both the prisoner and the community at large; that the Law protects the virtue of girls under the age of sixteen years, even if the girls are at times unwise or lack discretion.

I sentence the prisoner to 12 months in hard labour to be served consecutively to sentences which have been imposed by other courts.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor