State v Kua [1997] PGNC 22; N1524 (11 March 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1524

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 964 OF 1996
THE STATE
v
KARU JUNIOR KUA

Waigani

Passingan AJ
5-6 March 1997
11 March 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - robbery - no evidence of identification - admission - accused picked up by friends after robbery - insufficient evidence of Knowledge - robbery or stolen vehicle.

Cases Cited:

No cases are cited in the judgement

Trial On Indictment

The accused is jointly charged with another (Peter Barns) with one Count of armed robbery (s.386 Criminal Code) and one Count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner (s.383 Criminal Code). He pleaded not guilty to both Counts. The facts are stated in the judgement.

Counsel:

Mr Popeu for the State

Mr J Ulge for the accused

11 March 1997

PASSINGAN AJ: The Accused pleaded not guilty to one Count of armed robbery and one Count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. These offences were committed on the 14th day of March, 1996.

The facts are not in dispute. On the 14th day of March, 1996 at about 6.30 Am the victim drove her vehicle, a Mazda 929 Sedan, Registration No. BAL. 190 to the Hohola Shopping Centre. She was there to purchase some bread for the family. As she drove in she saw four youths drinking liquor near the shop. She stopped and before she could get out of the vehicle two men ran towards her. One was tall, slim and light-skin in Colour. This person was armed with a shotgun. He demanded for money and the Car Key. The victim handed him the car Key plus K20.00. The second man was shorter and had dark skin. After the tall man took the Car Key he handed it over to the shorter man.

The victim was put into fear. As soon as she handed over the Key she went into the shop to request for assistance. The shopowner assisted her to call the Police and brought her to her house. She did not see how many people drove away in her vehicle. And she was unable to identify the two men then or if she saw them again.

The only witness in the State Case was the Victim. The relevant portion of her evidence had been outlined above.

Finally in the State case the Record of Interview (Exhibits “A1 & A2”) was tendered by consent. It contains denials to the robbery Count. The accused admits to being picked up by two friends on the road. But denies knowledge of the robbery or that the vehicle he was in was stolen vehicle.

FINDINGS

On the evidence before the Court I find that the State has proved beyond reasonable doubt that a robbery was committed on the Victim by two persons on the 14th day of March, 1996.

ISSUES

The first issue to be determined is whether or not the accused is a party to the Crime of robbery. I find that there is no evidence of identification of this accused by the victim.

The second issue is whether his connection with the vehicle the subject of the robbery makes him a party to the robbery. There is no dispute, that the accused was picked up by friends who were driving the victims vehicle. Also there is no dispute that the accused accompanied the others as far as the Sogeri road until they were chased and he was apprehended by Police.

In my view the exact location where the accused got into the vehicle is relevant. If he got into the vehicle after the victim was held up he is a party to the robbery. And he will also be guilty of the second Count.

I find that there is no evidence as to how many persons got into the vehicle at that point. The victim did not see that. There is evidence that at least two others were at the front of the shop. There is no evidence that they joined the first two and drove away. That gap in her evidence could have been cured by a witness on the scene.

On the evidence before the Court I find the accused not guilty of armed robbery pursuant to S. 386 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of that charge.

The final issue is whether on the evidence the accused can be lawfully convicted of the second Count. The only evidence before the Court is from the accused himself. This is contained in his Record of Interview and sworn evidence. He was walking on the road from his house when his friends stopped and picked him up. He got into the vehicle and agreed to go with them to Sogeri. He had no knowledge of the robbery or that it was a stolen vehicle. He found out later whilst at Sogeri and he requested to be dropped off at 14 Mile. Further, he thought Daniel was driving his father’s vehicle. That Daniel Father’s vehicle was similar.

I find that this evidence stands unchallenged by any other evidence. There is, of course another consideration. Is the accused telling the truth or not. But in the absence of any other evidence, this evidence creates doubts in my mind whether or not the accused knew it was stolen vehicle.

Therefore, on the evidence before the Court I find the Accused not guilty of Count two.

Verdict:	Count One	Not Guilty
	Count Two	Not Guilty

Order: Accused is acquitted and discharged from Custody.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor.

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor