State v Suma [2017] PGNC 176; N6823 (20 June 2017)

N6823

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 133 of 1999

THE STATE

V
SAMSON SUMA AND DAVID SARE

Popondetta: Koeget, AJ
2017: 10^th and 20^th June.

CRIMINAL LAW-Indictable offence – stealing under section 372 (1) of the Criminal Code Act – Maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years under section 372(1) of the Criminal Code Act – Exercise of Court’s discretionary powers under section 19 of the Criminal Code Act.

Counsel:

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

20^th June, 2017

1. KOEGET, AJ: INTRODUCTION: The accuseds are charged that on 12^th April, 1998 at Papaki village, Kokoda in the Oro Province in Papua New Guinea stole store goods consisting of 1kg rice packets, globe tinned meat, cigarettes, torch bulbs, dry cell batteries, packets of steel wool, match boxes and wall clock. The total value of goods stolen is K219.00. The charge is brought under section 372 (1) of the Criminal Code Act.
   
2. The properties stolen belong to Robert Koni of Papaki village, Kokoda in the Oro Province. The State invoked section 7 of the Criminal Code Act.
   

FACTS:

3. The complainant Robert Koni owns and operates a trade store at Papaki village in Kokoda, Oro Province. On 12^th of April, 1998 at approximately 2 o’clock in the morning the accuseds entered the complainant’s trade store and stole 1kg rice packets, globe tinned meat, cigarettes, torch bulbs, dry cell batteries, packet of steel wool, match boxes and a wall clock. The value of the goods stolen is K219.00 and State alleged that the goods belong to Robert Koni.
   

ARRAIGNMENT:

4. The accuseds pleaded guilty to the charge and were convicted accordingly.

ISSUE:

5. The issue for the Court to determine is what is the appropriate sentence to impose upon the prisoners?

LAW:

“372. Stealing.

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

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

PERSONAL PARTICULARS:

Samson Suma

6. He is 35 years and is married with one child. He is a subsistence gardener and resides with family in the village. He completed grade 5 at Kokoda Primary School and returned home to live as a subsistence gardener.
   
7. His parents are deceased and he is the first born in the family of four children.
   

AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

8. The offence was committed at night in the company of another and it is prevalent in the country nowadays.
   

MITIGATING FACTORS:

9. The prisoner was 17 years old at the time he committed the offence and was a bachelor. But now he is 35 years old and is married with one child. He was then a first time youthful offender. He pleaded guilty to the charge and save Court’s valuable time in this circuit.
   
10. He spent 6 months in custody before released on cash bail of K300.00. He then absconded bail and remain at large for 18 years before arrested on bench warrant. He now appears from custody. So he has been in custody for one month now. The total period spent in custody is seven months.
    

David Sare

PERSONAL PARTICULARS:

11. He is 39 years of age and is married with five children. His wife is a subsistence gardener and resides with the prisoner in the village. He was 17 years at the time he committed the offence so he was then a first time youthful offender.
    

AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

12. The offence was committed at night and goods stolen were not recovered.
    

MITIGATING FACTORS:

13. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge and saved valuable time of the Court. No weapons were used in the commission of the offence and no one was injured when the offence was committed at night.
    
14. The prisoner was in custody for 6 months before released on cash bail of K300.00. He absconded bail and was arrested on bench warrant after 18 years at large.
    
15. He was arrested on bench warrant and has been in custody for one month now. The total period spent in custody is seven months.
    
16. The victim in this case is an uncle of the prisoner and all live in the same village. There has been no report of ill-feelings, arguments between the victim and prisoners since they absconded bail and returned to reside in the village.
    

SENTENCE:

17. The value of the goods stolen is less and when the prisoners absconded bail and returned to live in the same village as the victim, there has been no report of disputes between the parties.
    
18. The prisoners have spend total of 7 months each in custody in relation to this case and in my opinion that is sufficient punishment for the offence both committed 18 years ago.
    
19. Any further imprisonment term impose would be harsh particularly when the prisoners have reformed and are residing in the community happily with their respective families.
    
20. The prisoners are sentenced to be imprisoned for seven months each. Since they were in custody for seven months each, the pre-trial custodial period are substituted for the sentences imposed.

ORDERS:

(1) Both are to be released from custody forthwith.

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