State v Gipe [2000] PGNC 85; N2058 (17 August 2000)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

CRIMINAL LAW – Misappropriation – Money obtained through illicit bank scheme - Evidence – Identification – Features – Face - Name – Photographs – Identification parade – Signature – Handwriting

INJIA, J .: The accused is a former tax assessor employed by the Morobe Provincial Government’s (MPG) revenue section of the finance division. He pleaded not guilty to a charge that between 28 June 1995 and 18 June 1996, he dishonestly applied to his own use the sum of K141,877.04, the property of his employer, the said MPG, thereby contravening S.383(A) of the Criminal Code (Ch. No. 262).

The evidence against the defendant is both documentary and oral. All documentary evidence were tendered by the State and admitted into evidence without objection from the defence.

These are marked exhibits "A" - "V.V". The oral evidence consists of the sworn testimony of Mr. Sape Yapo, Mr. Bernie Jacob, Mr. Tonny Ase, Mrs. Nelly Rea, Mrs. Martha Waviha, Mrs. Jilter Keparo, Ms Lilian Mark, Mr. Ainea Sengero, Mr. Y. Kwami, S/C Simon Yawa, Sgt. Felix Rayabum, S/C Richard Setu and S/C Luke Awasa. The accused gave sworn evidence, supported by his wife Linda Gipe, and Mr. Stanley Egaro. Certain documentary evidence were also admitted into evidence for the defence and these are marked exhibits "T", "U", "V", "W", "Y", "Z", "AA" and "FF".

These facts are not in dispute. On 28/6/95, a bank passbook account under the name "Morobe Provinsel Gavman Wokman Trust Account" was opened at the Lae Branch of the Bank of South Pacific (BSP) by two persons who identified themselves to certain bank staff as Melsela G. Wari and Gawae Akiro. They were the only two joint signatories to the said account. Mr. Melsela G. Wari described himself as the elected President and Mr. Gawae Akiro described himself as the elected Treasurer and Secretary of the "Morobe Government Staff Club". According to a Minute of the said Club submitted to the bank, the Club was formed for their social and recreational purposes, in a meeting of 20 members of the said Club held on 2/6/95 between 12.00 - 1.00pm in the OSTD Conference Room. Also submitted to the bank was a letter written by the A/Assistant Secretary of the Finance Division of MPG Mr. Y. Kwami dated 9/6/95 authorising the opening of this account. But we now know for fact that no such meeting took place, no such group existed and Mr. Kwami never wrote that letter. It was all a fraud. After the account was opened, between 28/6/95 - 18/7/96, a total of nine (9) cheques from various business houses in Lae for general business sales tax (GST) totalling the sum of K141,877.04, which were all made out in the name of "Morobe Provincial Government" in typed print were collected by someone, then added "Workman Trust Account" at the end of "Morobe Provincial Government" in typed print and deposited the cheques into this account, and various withdrawals were made. On 18/7/96 the account was closed and the last of these withdrawals was made and account closing bank cheque for K49,115.99 was paid to one of the signatories to the illicit account. The issue is: Was the accused one of these two men signatory to the illicit account namely, Melsela G. Wari. In other words, it is one of identification.

In a criminal case, the burden is on the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who committed the crime. If there is a doubt, not any doubt but a reasonable doubt, that the accused was the man who committed the crime, then I must accord the accused the benefit of that doubt.

The principles on how the Court should treat identification evidence are well settled in this country, principally in the often-cited case which is quoted by Mr. Ousi of counsel for the accused, and that is The State v. John Beng [1976] PNGLR 471; John Beng v. The State [1977] PNGLR 115. The principles are:

"It has long been recognised that there are dangers inherent in eye-witness identification evidence...... Whenever the case against an accused person depends wholly or substantially or the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence allege to be mistaken, the trial judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting in reliance on the correctness of the identification. He should make some reference to the possibility that a mistaken witness could be a convincing one and that a number of such witnesses could be mistaken. Provided such a warning is given, no particular form of words need be used.

Further, the trial judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made...

Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger; but even when the witness is purporting to recognise someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made. All these matters go to the quality of the identification evidence. When the quality is good, the jury can be safely left to assess the value of the identifying evidence even though there is no other evidence to support: Provided always, however, that an adequate warning has been given about the special need for caution.

When the quality of the identifying evidence is poor --- i.e. a fleeting glance or a longer observation made in difficult conditions --- the judge should then withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification. (Raymond Turnbull & Ors [1970] HCA 21; [1970] 126 C.L.R. 321 adopted.

There are four State eye-witnesses and they are Mr. Sape Yapo, Mrs. Jilter Keparo, Mrs. Martina Waviha and Mrs. Nellie Rea. Their evidence is relevant to the issue of identification. The other State witnesses’ evidence are not directly relevant to this issue.

Mr. Sape Yapo’s evidence in chief is that he is the Assistant Manager of BSP, Lae and he has been with BSP for the last 15 years of which most of it was spent at Lae. His evidence in chief is that he was not aware of the illicit account being opened and the bank transactions on this illicit account prior to 18/7/96. On 18/7/96, he was referred a problem withdrawal slip for K7,000.00 on the account presented by someone to a staff of the bank, after a large cheque deposit for K42,381.92 was made on 12/7/96. This man was the accused. He became a bit concerned because all bank accounts with Statutory bodies were with PNGBC. So he walked up to the man who presented himself at the bank and spoke to him about the purpose of the account. He then refused to authorise it and told him he would make a few enquiries first and then get back to him.

That day, the same person made two phone calls asking if he would speed up his enquiries as he needed the money for staff functions over the coming long week-end. He then became suspicious and decided to close the account after consulting with his relations manager. This man returned to the bank and discussions took place between him and the man as to whether the closing balance should be made in the form of the individual person’s names as requested by the man and he refused and decided that the cheque should be made out to Morobe Provincial Government Workmen Trust Account. This man was required to sign the withdrawal slip for the account closure form. This man signed the withdrawal form in front of him whereas the second signature was already on it. This man’s signature is that on the left hand side of the withdrawal slip identified with Melsela G. Wari.

Under cross examination, Mr. Yapo was adamant that he saw this same man, the accused, on three occasions at the bank that same day in which he made attempts to withdraw the money. The first was when he came to withdraw K7,000.00. The second was when he came to withdraw the money again. On both occasions, he refused. The third was when he came to collect the account closing bank cheque. On top of this, the same man called him twice on the phone asking to withdraw the money as a matter of urgency. He said there were a couple of blokes with the accused that day but he did not speak to them. He was shown a photograph of the suspect, the accused, by the CID when they took his statement, that photograph helped him in identifying the accused. He said, "if the photograph was not given to me, I would not have said that it was the same person." When asked by Mr. Ousi "I am suggesting to you that when the photograph was given to you, you took it as a person similar to the one you had seen in the bank?", he answered, "it was exactly the same person that I talked to, with glasses, clean shave, his features stood out clear." He said he knew Scott Giru, the cashier with MPG as a wantok of his but it was not him that he gave the account closing bank cheque to.

The next State eye-witness is Mrs. Jilter Keparo. She was a bank teller with BSP Lae, who was serving customers on 15/7/96. The accused presented a withdrawal slip for a "thousand five hundred kina" with the amount K2,500.00 written in figures. The accused altered the "thousand Kina" to "two thousand kina" and she paid him K2,500.00. It was a problem withdrawal because of the amendment. He initialled the amendment and she placed her initial further down. The back of the withdrawal slip also shows the full signatures of Melsela G. Wari as per customer authority card and two other signatures. At the end of 1996, she was shown two photographs of the accused and she identified them as those of the man she served on 15/7/96, the accused. She said the initials appearing on the customer authority card is for Emma Harold, who is the supervisor and still working with the bank.

The next State eye-witness is Huon Chemicals Pty Ltd Secretary Mrs. Martina Waviha. On 27 July 1995, she was asked by someone from the MPG revenue section named Sela Gipe to bring in a cheque for sales tax with only the amount filled out of K1,614.63. She went to the MPG headquarters and asked for Mr. Sela Gipe and she was referred to Mr. Sela Gipe’s office. She handed the cheque to the accused. She asked for a receipt but the accused promised it would be posted to her later.

The fourth State eye-witness is Mrs. Nellie Rea, the Branch Accountant of PNG Motors. She saw the accused come to collect various business sales tax cheques on various occasions. Of those collected by the accused, were 5 cheques for various amounts. The accused collected a cheque made out to Morobe Provincial Gavman dated 3/7/95, cheque No. 466509 for head tax for K100.00; cheque No. 466510 dated 3/7/95 for K4,135.00 for land tax; 21/7/95, cheque No. 472404 for K12,332.57 for GST; cheque No. 472585 dated 21/8/95 for K17,103.93 for GST, and cheque No. 569268 dated 21/06/96 for K18,098.36 for GST, for all of which he signed the respective receipts. The last three of these cheques were altered by someone to add "Workman Trust Account" at the end of the "Morobe Provincial Government" and deposited into the illicit BSP Account.

Then there is the expert evidence of the finger print evidence of Const. Felix Rayabum, who said the handwriting on the disputed bank documents matched those of the accused in other bank documents and the accused’s application for employment form lodged with the MPG.

The defence evidence comes from the sworn evidence of the accused. The evidence of the two other witnesses called by the accused are not relevant to the issue of identification. The accused has denied the State evidence and has raised a number of factual matters which he says shows that he was not involved in the illicit scheme at all. That the name Melsela G. Wari is not his name, that the person they say they saw was not him but is being mistaken for someone else working in the Revenue Section that police used unfair and prejudicial tactics in showing only his photograph to these witnesses, and that the fingerprint expert who established similar traits in his handwriting was done unfairly in that he was only provided with the accused’s handwriting documents to form an opinion.

In this trial, there are six (6) main features of identification evidence in issue and these are:

1.	Facial Appearance It is submitted by defence counsel that the three State eye-witnesses, Yapo and Keparo are mistaken as to the face of the man they said they saw on the relevant occasions because there were many people they would have been serving and there were a number of staff of the revenue section of similar description who went out to collect GST cheques and are likely suspects, that is, they’re clean shaven and wore sunglasses like the accused. It is submitted the names of other possible suspects were suppressed by his superior Bernie Jacob and singled out the accused. Counsel for the State submits both Yapo and Keparo clearly identified the accused in broad daylight, in sufficient time on special occasions where they were presented with a special problem by the accused for their resolution, and that is sufficient.
	In respect of the evidence of Waviha, defence counsel submits that she went to someone else’s office and spoke to another officer of the Revenue Section, and that she is mistaken. Counsel for the State submits Waviha also presented a special problem for the accused’s resolution, that she had ample time to speak to the accused in his office in confidence, and that she cannot be mistaken. In respect of the evidence of Rea, defence counsel submits she was not the person who handed over the disputed cheques to the person from MPG who came to collect the cheque and her evidence is unreliable.
	In assessing the facial identification evidence before me, I do warn myself of the special need for caution. In assessing the evidence for the State first, it is convenient to state at the outset the eye-witnesses Yapo and Keparo were first-time acquaintances. But their observation were made in broad daylight, they had ample time to speak to the man they say is the accused and had their attention focused on that man because they were handling a delicate and important matter in that substantial money was changing hands, and that it was their normal course of business to establish the identity of the customer they were doing business with before they conducted valid business with the customer. Their interaction with the man they say is the accused was not an ordinary shift through the public mass queuing up for service at the bank. They had a special reason to attend to this particular man who presented a special problem for their resolution and he persisted until the problem was resolved to his satisfaction. They had ample time to see his face and speak to him. They certainly cannot be mistaken about the identity of this man. The same can be said of Waviha’s evidence. She was also a first time acquaintance of the accused. Unlike Yapo and Keparo, she would have been more alert as to the identity of the man she was referred to as Sela Gipe, because she had a blank cheque to fill out in respect of the payee’s name. When she saw him, she must have had a good look at this man Sela Gipe’s face. And that is exactly what she says she did. She too cannot be mistaken.
	In respect of Mrs. Nelly Rea, she was not a first time acquaintance of the accused because she had business dealings with over a period of time obviously was not the immediate officer before whom the accused collected MPG GST cheques from PNG Motor’s office who handed over the cheques to the accused but she knew the accused as one of those MPG staff of the Revenue Section who came to collect the cheques. She would see who was coming in to the reception area to collect the cheques through the glass window. The accused does say he collected the following cheques namely, on 3/7/95, cheque no. 466509 for K100.00, cheque no. 466510 for K6,535.00 and on 7/7/95 cheque no. 466541 for K9,243.74 and cheque no. 466547 for K6,713.70 but he did not collect the following cheques namely, on 21/8/95 cheque no. 472585 for K17,103.93, on 26/7/95 cheque no. 472403 for K1,850.00, on 26/6/95 cheque no. 569368 for K18,098.36, on 20/10/95 cheque no. 501608 for K19,656.69, on 21/7/95 cheque no. 472404 for K12,332.57. Of these 4 cheques that he collected, he gave them to the Chief Revenue Officer who then recorded the details and gave them to the Cashier Scott Giru, to bank in the normal way and receipts were issued for these cheques. He says the signatures appearing on the PNG Motors Cheque Pay Book against these 4 cheques are his whereas for the other cheques, are not his.
	Leaving aside the disputed cheques, even on the accused’s admissions, the two cheques collected on 3/7/95 were deposited into the illicit account on 21/7/95 by someone. Then on these particular cheques, there appears to be multiple receipts issued by the Revenue Section/Cashier and the particulars of cheque numbers entered on the receipts tampered with. Therefore, the accused is the first in line of members of the revenue section who went to collect GST cheques from PNG Motors, who is strongly implicated in respect of these two disputed cheques.
2.	Name The accused’s name in the indictment before arraignment was Sela Gipe Wari. Upon arraignment, he said his name is Sela Gipe only. The indictment was amended by the
	court accordingly to read "Sela Gipe" only. His evidence now is that the name WARI is actually part of his family name in that it is his father’s middle name, namely GIPE WARI GOMI. This name is found in the accused’s MPG Employment Application form submitted by the accused on 28/1/94. In Court, the accused said the name "WARI" is his father’s nickname, which even people in his village do not know because "It is a name only known to the family members."
	It is clear from the evidence of State witness Yapo and Keparo that the man they were transacting valid business with identified himself to them as Melsela G. Wari and that the name Sela Gipe was made known to them later during the investigation by police and other persons. State witness Waviha and Rea knew this man to be Sela Gipe. All these witnesses are clear of the face of the accused. And so whatever the accused’s real name was to those with whom the accused interacted or transacted with is not all that important as the face of the man they were dealing with. Even if the name of the man were important, then when one looks at the name "Melsela G. Wari" used in the banking transactions, that name comes very close to the accused’s real name. That is except for the letters "Mel", the words "Sela", and the initial "G", for "Gipe" are part of the accused’s real name. And the name "Wari" is a name very peculiar to the accused, which name even the village people do not know. No one in distant locations like those working in the MPG would be expected to know this secret family name. This means only the accused would supply that name to BSP, and no one else from MPG.
3.	Photographs There is no contest on the two photographs as being that of the accused which were shown to State witnesses by police during their investigations. There is evidence that these witnesses were not shown other photographs for them to make up their mind. It is submitted by Mr. Ousi that the photographs were used in circumstances which were unfair to the accused. I am referred to by Mr. Ousi to a text in Archibald Criminal Pleading and Evidence and Practice 43rd Edn. at p.45 - 47 which says that the use of photographs by the police to enhance the identification of an accused person must be done
	in fairness such as by showing the witness a number of photographs. However, it is argued for the State that the photographs were only an aid used by the police to refresh the memory of these witnesses to the suspect, and in Court, they were able to clearly identify the accused as the man they said they saw without reference to the photographs.
	I accept the submissions of the State. The accused does not take issue with how the police took these photographs of his in the first place. It may be normal police procedure to photograph suspects and use the photograph in their investigations. The photographs would have been taken with the consent of the accused, that means he would have known that it would be used for investigation purposes. It is fair then to say that he gave his implied consent to the police to use his photograph, for their investigation. Further, there is no requirement in law that police must use photographs of other suspects for comparative analysis in their investigation work.

4.	Identification parade It is submitted by Mr. Ousi that no identification parade was conducted by the police because there were a number of officers wearing eye-glasses working in the same office including the accused and they all fitted the description given by these witnesses. In my view however, it is not the rule in this country that police must always conduct an identification parade. But if they chose to conduct one, then it must be fair to the accused, that is, a number of persons with similar description lined up and the witness asked to pick one: see *State v. Thomas Some N366(M).* In my view, as no identification parade was conducted in this case, the issue of its fairness does not arise for my consideration.

5.	Signature There are two signatures of the accused in issue. There is no dispute that the accused’s real signature is that found on his MPG employment application form and his letter of
	complaint to the Administrator and his personal PNGBC account records. There is a dispute as to the other signature appearing on the BSP Bank records attributed to Melsela G. Wari. The State case is that the accused used this second signature to open the account as part of the fraud scheme. The accused denies this to be so.
	There is evidence which shows that the accused is capable of having more than one signature. His other signature appears on Exhibit "FF(St)" in respect of two MPG cheques he says he collected on 3/7/95 from PNG Motors and two MPG cheques he says he collected on 7/7/95 from PNG Motors. These are found in the Cheque Delivery Book kept by PNG Motors. It is noted that the last two columns are provided for the person receiving the cheques to print his name and sign his signature. In respect of the four cheques the accused picked up, he signed his signature only and not his name. His signature appears calculated and complex and completely different to his real signature and all 4 signatures appear consistent. It is also noted that in respect of the other cheques the accused denies collecting, they also do not disclose the name of the person who received these cheques and the signatures on them appear to be similar in style to the signatures placed by the accused. Further, it is noted that most of the people collecting cheques for other companies put their names down together with their signatures, whereas the accused did not. Therefore, I find that the accused is capable of inventing multiple signatures, that he invented the different signatures found in the PNG Motors cheque pick up book in respect of the disputed cheques, that he too invented the signature found in the BSP bank transactions and used it consistently over time on many occasions, and that he so framed that signature in the BSP records with the intention to defraud.

6.	Handwriting The evidence of the police handwriting expert Det. Felix Rayabam has established similar traits or characteristics between the accused’s real signature and handwriting with the disputed signature and handwriting.
	Mr. Ousi submits his evidence should not be accepted because the expert did not compare the disputed handwriting with other staff of the Revenue Section, who had similar handwritings; to eliminate other suspects. In my view, I accept Mr. Rayabam’s evidence because he is a man with proper qualifications and vast experience in these sort of matters and has sufficiently examined the handwritings to be able to arrive at an informed opinion. He was given a specific task to form an opinion based on handwriting samples provided to him by the police and he cannot be expected to call upon all possible handwriting authors in the MPG Revenue Section to form a comparative analysis to determine the exact persons involved.

The defence raise a number of other unsatisfactory aspects of the State evidence. These are:

From my own analysis of the evidence as a whole, several other aspects of the State case raise cause for concern. These are:

1.	There is no direct evidence from the State from within MPG as to any suspicious activities of the accused in relation to the disputed cheques and the bank account. This illicit scheme was clearly demised by people from within MPG, particularly people working in the Revenue Section and it went on unchecked for 12 months. It appears no one, not even the supervisor Bernie Jacob was aware of it until the illicit account was closed.
2.	The first time the illicit account was opened, the BSP officer who authorised the opening of the illicit account and certified the identify and specimen signatures to go on the customer record card, is the one who would have spent a lot of time with. He or she has not been called, even though one Emma Harold appears to be still employed by BSP as a supervisor.
3.	Mr. Sape Yapo initially had concern that day of the genuineness of the account. He was to have made telephone enquiries with the MPG Management to ascertain the Status of this account but appears he didn’t because he was interrupted by phone calls from this man. In the end he decided to close the account. Sometimes later, presumably after he paid out the cheque, he "made immediate contact with the relevant authorities within the Morobe Provincial Government, in particular Mr. Sengero and it was from thereon we discovered that the account was actually opened purportedly to defraud the Department of Morobe". The question arises as to his failure to secure full particulars of the identity of the man before releasing the cheque under these circumstances. Still better, if he acted prudently, then it could have resulted in catching of this man re-
	handed and there would not have been a trial like this on the issue of identification. Also he had before him a man who came in with some other persons and was given a withdrawal slip with a signature already on it.
4.	Jilter Keparo failed to secure the signatures of both Melsela G. Wari and Gewae Akiro, to initial the amendment and paid out the cash to just one of the signatories to the account.
5.	The evidence of Nelly Rea is secondary to the actual person PNG Motors from whom the accused collected the disputed cheques.
6.	Ms. Martina Waviha may have acted recklessly by producing a GST cheque without the payee’s name on it.
7.	This is a case where there clearly was an illicit scheme demised by officers within the MPG to defraud the MPG. It is not a case of just one person but a number of persons. The officers working in the Revenue Section at that time are principal suspects. The Cashier Mr. Scott Giru is a key person who would be able to tell who collected and brought in what cheques and to whom he issued the relevant receipts. He has not been called to clarify these issues of fact.

8.	The evidence is that there is a number of persons working for the Revenue Section and MPG of a similar description as that of the accused and wearing eye-glasses. Some of them were collecting GST cheques. Evidence from a fellow employee who collected cheques, if called, would have been helpful to the State case. Bernie Jacob was a supervisor of the Revenue Section and his evidence does not really help in tracking down the identity of the employee to the disputed cheques.

9.	There is evidence of tampering of MPG receipts and receipt books kept by the Revenue Section. Their recording system appears to be inaccurate.
10.	The evidence of the supposed use of a little portion of the stolen funds to the purchase of a dinghy and a outboard motor by the accused and his wife in association with others bear no resemblance to the kind of money that was stolen.
11.	The entries of deposits made on the accused’s personal account with PNGBC do not show any significant deposits in the relevant period which resemble the kind of money allegedly stolen by the accused. The deposits appear to be well within the range of salary in respect of both the accused and his wife and their business income from their family tucker shop.

This is a case in which the quality of the State eye-witnesses facial identification evidence is of good quality, is strong and convincing. This evidence is supported by the evidence of photographic evidence, signature evidence, handwriting expert evidence and the evidence as to the name used in the fraudulent scheme as discussed herein. All the unsatisfactory aspects of the evidence I have pointed out above taken at its highest shows that there were other people employed by MPG who acted in concert with the accused in the fraudulent scheme and these suspects, some of whom have been named in this trial, are still at large. As for this accused, he has been clearly pointed out as the principal actor and there remains no shadow of doubt in my mind, that he was the man seen by Mr. Yapo, Ms Keparo and Ms Waviha and Mrs Rea either collecting some of the cheques in issue or conducting valid business on the illicit account. The evidence is not only of one person but of four different persons of seeing the same man. In my judgment, the State has sufficiently discharged its burden by singling out the accused as the principal actor in this illicit scheme. I am not provided with any possible motives why these 4 eye-witnesses would lie against the accused. These unsatisfactory features taken individually or collectively, do not detract from the main identification evidence of the four eye-witnesses.

Having resolved the issue of identification, it remains to be determined if the State has proved all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is charged under S.383(A) of the Criminal Code. The elements of the offence are that the accused dishonestly applied to his own use monies belonging to another person.

On the evidence I have already found that the subject monies belonged to the MPG.

On the evidence, I have also found that the accused was one of the persons who opened this illicit account and deposited and withdrew the subject monies thereafter and that this was done dishonestly. Although there is no evidence as to the accused collecting all the disputed cheques and making all the withdrawals from the account, I find that his signature was indispensable for the valid operating of this illicit account. Therefore, he should be held responsible for all the disputed deposits into this account and withdrawals from this account.

I find that all the monies were designated for the purpose of payment of MPG GST liabilities. I find that the monies were instead diverted by the accused and others to their own personal use. The evidence is unclear as to how the monies were spent by the accused but that is a matter of inference; that is, he applied the money to his own use, whatever the use the monies were put to, may be: Kindi Lawi v. The State [1987] PNGLR 183.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime of misappropriation. I find him guilty as charged.

In conclusion, I wish to state for the record that one of the State’s key witness, Mr. Sape Yapo, is the second person in line of two staff of BSP bank, Lae, with whom I had contact with during the course of the trial, under circumstances of official business convenience, when I was negotiating a home-loan from the BSP bank. This was after he gave evidence and the defence went into evidence. This matter was brought to the attention of both counsels, in my chambers, and both counsels saw no need to object to my continuing with the trial. Thereafter, a number of other exchanges took place between us before judgment for purposes of completing the loan arrangement. Our contacts were purely professional. My judgment on his evidence is in no way affected by those interactions between us.
______________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State : Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Accused : Warner Shand

1.	Facial appearance.
2.	Name.
3.	Photograph.
4.	Identification parade.
5.	Signature.
6.	Handwriting.

1.	Discrepancies in various receipts;
2.	The other tax assessors employed who were the possible suspects have not been called by the State, principally Scott Giru, (who also wore eye-glasses like the accused) who worked in the cash office and issued receipts;
3.	The Revenue Section Supervisor, Bernie Jacob, suppressed names of these other suspects, who worked in the office;
4.	Discrepancies in the receipts issued by the cashier Scott Giru and other records kept by the Scott Giru, and the inability of the State to produce Scott Giru to explain the discrepancies;
5.	There is a suggestion that there was a scheme where these companies raised two identical cheques, one payable to MPG which was paid into its proper account which was with PNGBC and the other paid to the illicit BSP account as bribe money;
6.	The State has not called the BSP officer, and by the name of Emma Harold whose initials appear on the customer card, who opened the account in the first place, to explain whether the accused was one of these persons who opened the account even though she is still employed by the BSP, Lae.

National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Gipe [2000] PGNC 85; N2058 (17 August 2000)