State v Aro [2021] PGNC 358; N9176 (21 September 2021)

N9176

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1012 OF 2008

BETWEEN:
THE STATE

AND:
OTTO SPENCER ARO

Vanimo: Rei, AJ
2021: 20^th & 21^st September

CRIMINAL LAW – Practise and Procedure – Three (3) counts of armed robbery – indictment presented – no witnesses to testify – offence committed in 2001 – accused acquitted of all counts

Cases Cited:
Nil State -v- Paul Kundi Rape (No2) [1976] PNGLR 96
Legislations Cited:

Section 386 (1) (a) & (b) of the Criminal Code Act S.386 (1) (2) (b) of the Criminal Code Act
Counsel:
Ms. D. Ambuk, for the State
Mr. P. Moses, for the Defence

21^st September, 2021

1. REI AJ: BACKGROUND: The Sate presented an indictment on the 20^th of September 2021 which contained three (3) counts of armed robbery.
   
2. The three (3) counts of armed robbery were laid under Section 386(1) (a) & (b) of the Criminal Code Act which read as follows:
   

COUNT ONE:

OTTO SPENCER ARO of MALOL, AITAPE-LUMI of WEST SEPIK PROVINCE stands charged that he on the 16^th day of February 2001, at Vanimo Forest Product Base Camp at Ossima Village, Bewani – West Sepik Province in Papua New Guinea stole with actual violence from Vanimo Forest Products Limited store goods valued at Three Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty-three Kina, Sixty Toea (K3,183.60), the property of Vanimo Forest Products.

COUNT TWO:

OTTO SPENCER ARO of MALOL, AITAPE-LUMI DISTRICT of WEST SEPIK PROVINCE stands charged that he on the 16^th day of February 2001, at Vanimo Forest Product Base Camp at Ossima Village, Bewani – West Sepik Province in Papua New Guinea stole with actual violence from MOH HIONG HOO monies and personal properties valued Eleven Thousand, Three Hundred and One Kina, Seventy-nine Toea (K11,301.79) the properties of MOH HIONG HOO.

COUNT THREE:

OTTO SPENCER ARO of MALOL, AITAPE-LUMI DISTRICT of WEST SEPIK PROVINCE stands charged that he on the 16^th day of February 2001, at Vanimo Forest Product Base Camp at Ossima Village, Bewani – West Sepik Province in Papua New Guinea stole with actual violence from PAROL WAN monies valued at One Thousand, Five Hundred Kina (K1,500.00) the property of PAROL WAN.

3. The contents of the indictment and brief facts of the case were read out to the accused.
   
4. When asked whether he understood the three (3) counts of armed robbery and the facts there to, he said he did.
   
5. The accused was asked to enter a plea to which he responded that he enters a plea of not guilty to count 1, 2 and 3 contained in the indictment.
   
6. Mr. P. Moses submitted that the pleas were consistent with instructions.
   

NO WITNESS

7. Ms. Ambuk for the State submitted that the State does not offer any evidence against the accused as the victims who are all from Malaysia, had all left and cannot be contacted. She then closed the State’s case.
   
8. Mr. P. Moses submitted that the accused person be acquitted as there is no evidence against him.
   

DECISION

9. In the light of the fact that the State does not have any evidence to proceed with against the accused, all three counts of armed robbery are dismissed.
   
10. The accused is therefore acquitted of all three counts of armed robbery.
    
11. The Court therefore orders that the three (3) counts of armed robbery are dismissed, the accused is acquitted.

______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Defendants