State v Vala [1997] PGNC 33; N1527 (21 March 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1527

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 985 OF 1996
THE STATE
v
KEPI VALA

Waigani

Passingan AJ
11 March 1997
13 March 1997

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

PASSINGAN AJ: On your own plea of guilty the Court has convicted you on a charge of misappropriation pursuant to S.383A of the Criminal Code.

The facts were briefly this: The prisoner was employed as a Bookkeeper with the PNG Homes Finance Limited at the time of the offence. Between the 1st of Febrandy and 2nd September, 1995 she was employed as such. At timesacted as the CompaCompany’s accountant. Her duties includllection tion of loan repayments and issuing of receipts, Custody and banking of monies.&#1uring the period in question a total of K12,401.37 was paid paid to her. She issued the receipts, made records of the payments, but did not bank the money. Insteadused the monies fors for her own purposes. The offence of misapiationation carries thimum penalty of 10 years. Your case fallsr S. 38S. 38S. 383A (2)(b) of the Criminal Code, where you are liable to imprisonment for a not exceeding 10 years.

Your position in the Companompany as a Bookkeeper or an Accountant was a responsible one. You were iosition of trusttrust. Alot of would have passedassed through you daily. The Company relied o to coto collect the m issue receipts and to make deposit into the Company’s Bank Account. But you faou failed to do that. The second factor ttaken into account is the period over which you cheatcheated your employer. You did this for a period of six (6) months.

Nowthe materials before the Court there is no explanxplanation as to how the money was used.&#ed. There is nlanation as to w to wh need much money durinduring that period of 6 months.

Thep>There is no doubt that the Company was affected by your action. They yok and used was a lo a loss to the Company. It reIt remains a lotil thil the money is put back into the Company’s Acc

On sentence I take into account your statement, on allocutus and your lawyer’8217;s submissions in mitigation. I theseors into account:ount:ount:

(a) yoat re afirs offender;

(b) 㼠 steady eady employmployment record dating back to 1973, a period of 22 years;

(c)p>(c) &##160; your pfur pf guio t

(d) &160; ҈ that you are remorsemorsemorseful eful and your promise not to do this again;

(e) 0; faround, ed w ed wiur chur children, the yohe youngesungest being 3 years; and

(f) #160; t &#160 your undertakinmastitu

u

also take into account the Affidavit evit evidencidence of e of Reverend Alu Daniel (Exhibit “A”) as to the prisoner&#821haracnd toher give Counselling to her on spiritual matl matters.ters.

Your Counsel cited a number of decisions on the exercise of the Court’s discretion in sentencing. I take note of thosesions.ions. But the sentencing lines fnes for the offence of misappropriation are set out in Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496. The Supreme Coaid in that that Case whereamount misapproprpropriated is between K10,00.00 and K40,0040,000.00, two to three years imprisonment is appropriate. Two to thears sonment is t is the starting point to be adjusted upwa upwards or downwards according to factors set out in that decision. ve red to those that are rere relevant in this case.

To conclude, I consider a sentesentence of 16 months imprisonment in lighour appropriate.

SENTENCE

16 months imprisonment in light labour.

ORDERS

I order that the whole of the sentence be suspended on the following Conditions:

(a) ;&#16at by virtuvirtue of S of S.19 (1)(b) of the Criminal Code, you pay a fine of K500.00 within seven (7) days (by 21st March, 1997);

(b) &##160;; tha repa sumeof K1of K12,401.36 within a pn a perioderiod of t of ten (10) months (by 13th January, 1988).

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: S Mulina Lawyers