State v Raymond [2020] PGNC 161; N8379 (10 June 2020)

N8379

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 281 of 2020

THE STATE

V

MAYA RAYMOND

Madang: Geita J
2020: 27^th May; 3^rd, 9^th,10^th June

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Abduction of girl under age 18 years – Victim taken away without the consent of her parents – Consensual sex- Mitigating factors out-weight aggravating factors – Sentenced to 12 months less pre-trail custody periods – Remaining balance wholly suspended and sentenced to the rising of the Court – s. 220 (1) Criminal Code.


Cases Cited:

Goli Golu v. The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Kuri Willie v The State (1987) PNGLR 298
Paulus Mandatitip and Anor v The State [1987] PNGLR 128
Saperus Yalibakut v The State [2005] SCRA No 52
The State v Joe Foe Leslie Leslie N1496
The State v Wanda [1997] N1600

Counsel:

Mr. Steven Francis, for the State
Ms. Delailah Ephraim, for the accused

NOTE: I delivered this judgment extempore. This is the edited version of the judgment.

DECISION ON SENTENCE

10^th June, 2020


1. GEITA J: You Maya Raymond pleaded guilty before me on a charge of abducting a girl under the age of 18 and having sex with her without her mother’s permission. The offence comes under s.220 (1) Criminal Code and attracts a maximum penalty of two years. You are now before me to receive your sentence.

2. The brief facts as agreed to by the prosecution and defence on the depositions for the plea of guilty are these: On 25 October 2019 around 5.30pm at Mutzing Primary School in Markham you took Julienne and hid in a classroom. At nightfall you took her to a nearby riverside and had sex with her. You returned the girl to a friend’s house the next day. By then her parents were searching for her. At that time, you were 19 years and the girl was 16 years 2 months.

3. You were educated up to grade 8 at Mutzing Primary School and come from a family of six children. You live at Mutzing and remain unemployed. Your pre-sentence report prepared on your behalf by Probation Officer Alice Biko details your family background including a recommendation for your suitability for probation. You have accepted full responsibility for your wrongs. You also told this Court that you were very sorry to the Court, the lawyers and the victim’s relatives for what you had done to the girl.

4. The mitigating factors favourable to you include the following: No prior convictions; this was an isolated incident; you have expressed remorse; you entered an early guilty plea; the girl you had sex with was your girlfriend and there was a small age gap between the both of you. These are the aggravating factors against you: You took the girl without her parent’s consent; prevalence of abduction cases.

5. As regards what would an appropriate sentence be in your case, I have been ably assisted by both lawyers with their respective submission including the appropriate case laws. The case of The State v Wanda (1997) N1600 has been referred to me as the most suitable case in this instance. As regards whatever benefits are entitled to you upon your guilty plea, the case of Saperus Yalibakut v The State SCRA No 52 of 2005 has also been referred to me.

6. Both counsels agree that this case is not the worst of its kind and so the maximum penalty of 2 years should not be imposed: (Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.)

7. I take note that you are a first-time offender and have admitted to this crime. In light of what both counsels have submitted before me I will not consider a custodial sentence. Might I say here that most Courts have been slow to send young first-time youthful offenders to prison for very good reasons. The case of The State v Joe Foe Leslie Leslie N1496 succinctly covers this proportion. Further discussions are contained in these two cases: Paulus Mandatitip and Anor v The State [1987] PNGLR 128 and Kuri Willie v The State (1987) PNGLR 298. The late Hinchliffe J as he was then also discussed the need for courts to investigate alternatives to imprisonment when dealing with youthful first-time offenders with imprisonment to be used as the last resort. (Emphasis mine)

8. Having considered the very helpful submissions of both counsels on the range of sentence that I should consider, I will impose a non-custodial sentence as your mitigating factors outweigh your aggravating factors.

9. I will sentence you to 12 months imprisonment less the time you spent in pre-trail custody which is 7 months 1 week. Considering the time that you have spent waiting for your case, I am of the view that in itself was and is adequate punishment under the circumstance. The remainder of your sentence will be suspended to the rising of this Court.

Sentenced accordingly.

Public Prosecutor : Lawyers for the State
Public Solicitor : Lawyers for the Prisoner