State v Trophine (J) [2017] PGNC 161; N6829 (22 June 2017)

N6829

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1040 of 2015

THE STATE

V

ENOCH TROPHINE (J)

Popondetta: Koeget, AJ
2017:19^th & 22^nd June.

CRIMINAL LAW - Indictable offence – under section 372(1) of the Criminal Code Act – guilty plea – Maximum sentence – Exercise of Court’s discretionary powers under section 19 of the Criminal Code Act.

FACTS:

On the afternoon of 14^th February 2015, between the hours of five o’clock and six o’clock in the afternoon, the three victims were returning home after shopping at Popondetta town. The accused in company of two other persons used a pop gun to hold up the victims and stole goods purchased in the shops valued at K617.80. The properties belong to Jerry Pasi, an adult national.

Cases Cited:

No cases

Counsel:

L. Toke, for the State
E. Yavisa and C. Namono, for the Accused

22^nd June, 2017
1. KOEGET AJ: INTRODUCTION: The accused is charged with stealing pursuant to section 372(1) of the Criminal Code Act.

ARRAIGNMENT:

2. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge so he was convicted accordingly.

ISSUE:

3. The issue for the Court to determine is what is the appropriate sentence to impose upon the prisoner.

LAW:

4. The law in relation to stealing is in these terms:

“372. Stealing.

(1) Any persons who steals anything capable of being stolen is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to this section, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.”

PERSONAL PARTICULARS:

5. The prisoner was aged 16 years at the time of commission of the offence but now he is 18 years old. He is a bachelor.

6. He is a first time youthful offender and was in Grade 7 at Sangara Primary school when he committed the offence.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

7. The prisoner committed the offence in company of two other persons. A fire arm was used in the commission of the offence. The goods stolen were not returned to the owner.

MITIGATING FACTORS:

8. The prisoner is a first time youthful offender. In the record of interview with the police, he denied commission of the offence but in Court he pleaded guilty to the charge so credit is accorded.

9. He is remorseful and states that whilst in jail he has realised that what he did was a foolish act and prison is not a suitable place for him. He has been in custody awaiting disposal of the case for 2 years and 5 months.

SENTENCE:

10. The maximum sentence for such offence is an imprisonment term not exceeding 3 years.

11. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge and is remorseful, in particular where he now realise that jail is not where he wants to be. He readily admits what he did to the victims was a foolish act.

12. The prisoner has been in custody for a period of 2 years and 5 months and in my opinion has served the imprisonment term. Any further sentence imposed would be unjust in the circumstances of the case. So the prisoner is sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 2 years and 5 months in hard labour.

ORDERS:

13. The orders of the Court are:

1. The pre-trial custodial period of 2 years and 5 months is substituted for the sentence pronounced.
   
2. The prisoner is discharged from Biru Corrective Institution Services forthwith.
   

Prosecutor Public: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor : Lawyer for the Accused