State v Scorphil [2024] PGNC 156; N10807 (30 April 2024)

N10807

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. NO. 1487 OF 2023

BETWEEN:
THE STATE

V

THOMPSON SCORPHIL
of BUSAMA VILLAGE, HUON GULF, MOROBE PROVINCE
Accused

Bulolo/Lae: Polume-Kiele J
2023: 17^th March, 4^th April, 5^th, 11^th & 15^th May, 2^nd, 5^th, 11^th, 10^th, 12^th & 24^th October
2024: 7^th February, 19^th March, 30^th April

CRIMINAL LAW- Verdict – trial – charge of one count of armed robbery, s 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) – Criminal Code Act – Evidence – Common sense and logic – Credibility of witnesses – Verdict of guilty returned.

Brief Facts:

On 21 March 2022, between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. a group of armed men went to Bulolo, Morobe Province in Papua New Guinea. They held up security guards of the PNG Forest Products in front of the Bulolo BSP Bank and they stole money valued in the sum of K108, 034.67. At the time of stealing, they used actual violence on any person in order to obtain the thing stolen. At the time they stole from the security guards of the PNG Forest Products, the robbers were armed with homemade guns and bush knives and in the act of stealing the money, they stabbed one of the security guards on the hand using a knife.

Cases Cited:
Papua New Guinean Cases

Beng v The State [1976] PNGLR 471
The State v Robert [2022] N9395
The State v Kevin Anis & Martin Ninigan (2003) N2360
The State v Cosmos Kutau Kitawai & Anor (No 1) N2266
The State v Paka [2016] N6914
State-v-Angosiwen (No. 1) [2004] PNGLR 1
State-v-Patrick (2004) PGNC 147; N2611
The State v Paka [2016] N6914
Garitau Bonu and Rosa Bonu v The State (1997) SC528
Peter Waragu Waranaka v Gabriel Dusava (2009) SC980
Andrew Palili v The State (2006) SC848
State v Jacob Dugura Roy (2007) N3137

Overseas cases

R. v Preston [1961] VicRp 115; [1961] V.R. 761 at p. 762

Counsel:

Ms S Joseph, for the State
Mr. C Boku, for the Accused

RULING ON VERDICT

30^th April 2024

1. POLUME-KIELE J: On 5 October 2023, Ms Tamate of the Office of the Public Prosecutor presented an indictment against the accused, Thompson Scorphil indicting him for one count of armed robbery under Section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act Chapter 262.
   
2. On 10 October 2023, he was arraigned. He pleaded "not guilty" to one count of armed robbery contrary to Section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act .
   

Defence raised by the accused

3. The accused denied his involvement in the armed robbery. He says that he did not participate and was involved in the robbery on the date of the alleged armed robbery. He says that he was at his cousin's house at Papuan Compound in Lae.
   
4. The onus is on the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations that is brought against the accused, Thompson Scorphil who is before the Court.
   

Issues for determination

5. A number of issues had arisen during the course of calling evidence. The first issue for determination is whether the accused Thompson Scorphil participated and or was involved in the commission of the armed robbery? The second issue really raises the issue of whether the Defence’s case was put to the State's witnesses, especially First Constable Emmanuel Muriken and First Constable Robinson Dominic?
   

The State’s Case

(A). Oral Evidence

6. To prove its case, the State called eight (8) witnesses out of the twenty-one (21) witnesses listed on the indictment. They all gave oral evidence under oath and were cross-examined.
   

(B). Documentary Evidence

7. The State also relied on a number of documents and physical exhibits. These documents and exhibits are marked and were tendered into evidence through the respective State Witnesses. These documents are:
   

(1) Statement of Malcom Sabine dated 04 April 2022 – (Marked as Exhibit "A") confirmed that a sum of K108,034.67 was stolen on 21 March 2022

(2) Statement of Linge Karam (Security Superintendent (PNGFP) dated 21 April 2022 contained a copy of the CCTV footage of the incident of 21 March 2022 (Marked as Exhibit “B”)

(3) 2x Photographs at Page 63 of First Constable Emmanuel Muriken statement showing the accused and his accomplices apprehended at Samos Street Papuan Compound, (Marked as Exhibits “C1” and “C2”).

(4) 5x Face Photographs of the accused, Thompson Scorphil, and his accomplices. These photographs are marked and referred to as Photograph No.”1”: is that of ALLAN HUAIYO; Photograph No. "2” is that of IAN KINSIM; both of which are dated 2 March 2023; Photograph No."3" is that of JOE PETER; Photograph No."4" is that of THOMPSON SCORPHIL and Photograph No."5" is that of JIMMY PETER UKE. The accused Thompson Scorphil and his accomplices were identified at the Lae Police Station by First Constable Muriken on 23 March 2022.

(5) Copy of indemnity receipt dated 25 April 2022 produced by First Constable Muriken (Marked as Exhibit “HE")

(6) Photographs from pages 68,69 & 70 of the Court file identified by First Constable Muriken were that of a knitted bilum (Marked as Exhibit "E1"); Photograph of dark - brown focus cap (Marked as Exhibit "E2", Photograph of string bilum and four (4) drivers’ licence (marked as Exhibit "E3").

(7) 1x photograph of man running towards PNGFP gate is identified by Senior Constable Kaman as the accused, Thompson Scorphil. (21 March 2022) Marked as Exhibit “F1")

(8) 1x photograph of the person identified as the accused in front of PNGFP gate. At page 63 middle picture as the accused in front of PNGFP gate, Marked as Exhibit “F1"). At page 63 middle picture as the accused in front of PNGFP gate at page 63 by Senior Constable Kaman (21 March 2022) Marked as Exhibit “F2")

(9) 1x photograph showing the getaway vehicle where the accused jumped onto the vehicle at page 65 identified by Senior Constable Kaman (21 March 2022) Marked as Exhibit "F3")

(10) A wool bilum at page 68 identified by Senior Constable Kaman (Marked as Exhibit "G1")

(11) A knitted String bilum with shells on page 70 identified by Senior Constable Kaman, Marked as Exhibit "G2")

(12) A dark brown focus cap identified by Senior Constable Kaman (Marked as Exhibit “G3")

(13) Cash money in the sum K4280.00 identified by Senior Constable Kaman, (in an envelope Marked as Exhibit “G4"

• K100 notes =21
• K50 notes =40
• K20 notes =14
  

(14) Record of Interview between the accused Thompson Scorphil and Senior Constable Kaman and corroborated by Reserve Policeman Lime dated 27 April 2022 at the Buimo CIS. (Marked as Exhibit “H”)
Evidence in Chief

Witnesses called by the State.

(1) Linge Karam

8. Mr. Linge Karam was the first State witness to give evidence for the State. He gave sworn oral evidence under Oath in pidgin which was translated to English. In his testimony, he testified that he is a security superintendent with PNG Forest Products in 2021. As to the reason he is in Court today is that he is in court to give evidence of a robbery that occurred on the 21" of March 2022 at Bulolo town sometime after lunch.
   
9. Mr. Karam testified that at the time of the robbery he was at his office when he saw people running and shouting robbery inside the PNG Forest Company Yard. He ran back into his office and called out on the radio alerting all the guards that a robbery took place, he further advised them to lock the gate. He also informed the management and reported the robbery to the police. As a security superintendent his job is to protect the safety of the employees and protect the Company's assets. He ensures there are unarmed guards at every location during the day, they deploy dogs at night, and they have CCTV cameras around the PNG FP Company Yard that operates 24/7. At the time of the robbery a CCTV footage dated 21/03/2022 between 12 noon and 2 pm was handed over to the police. He did not identify any of the robbers.
   

No cross-examination

(2) Chris Kapun

10. Mr. Chris Kapun gave sworn oral evidence under Oath in pidgin which was translated to English. In his testimony, he testified that he is employed as a security guard with the PNG Forest Products. He is in court to give evidence of a robbery that occurred on the 21^st of March 2022 at Bulolo town sometime after lunch. On Monday 21/03/2022 time around 1.55pm he was with the security supervisor and the driver went to the bank to do company bank runs. The security with the bag money was sited at the back of the vehicle and he was in front with the driver. They stopped in front of the Bulolo BSP bank, and the driver got out with the cash bag, that was when they held him up. Both he and the driver opened the car door to go outside but two men confronted them. The driver was held at gunpoint with gun pointed to his head whilst one of the robbers stabbed me with a knife in the left shoulder. He was injured and so he went back inside the car. The robbers escaped with the bag Money. As he was rushed to the hospital, he saw a white open- back cruiser with armed men left the company yard. He only recognized the robber who stabbed him, not by name but by face.
    

No cross-examination.

(3) Gibson Otto

11. Mr. Gibson Otto gave sworn oral evidence under oath in pidgin which was translated to English. In his testimony, he testified that he is employed as a security guard with the PNG Forest Products for almost 11 years. He is in court to give evidence of a robbery that occurred on the 21^st of March 2022 at Bulolo town sometime after lunch. Two robbers held him up in front of the Bulolo BSP Bank inside the company yard, The robbers were armed with bush knives and guns. These robbers wanted the bag money that he was depositing for the company on that day. One of the robbers used a knife to cut him on his left thumb and took off with the money. He cannot recall nor recognize any of the robbers.
    

No cross-examination

(4) Peter Gau

12. Mr. Peter Gau gave sworn oral evidence under oath in pidgin which was translated to English and was cross-examined. In his testimony, he states that he is employed as a security guard with the PNG Forest Products for 15 years. He is in court to give evidence of a robbery that occurred on 21 March 2022. On the day of the robbery around 1.56 pm he was manning in front of the PNG Forest Products Hardware. The robbery occurred at the Bulolo BSP bank and the distance from where he was is about 30 meters. He heard people shouting Hold Up, He saw a white cruiser with robbers armed with guns. When he saw that, a gun man was running towards the hardware store gate from 2-mile side. He retreated into the hardware gate and locked the gate.
    
13. He recalled giving his story to the police Jack Kaman. He told the police that at the lime of Hold Up he saw a white land cruiser and at the same time a gun man running from 2-mile market towards the hardware store. He thought of his life and locked the gate. The next day he was recalled to the police station, and he was shown some photographs, he could only recognize one. He was shown about six (6) photographs, each numbered appropriately.
    
14. In his testimony, he states that he recognized one photograph as the gunman running towards the hardware store from 2 mile. He identified this gunman in Photograph Number four (4) from the six photographs shown to him during his testimony.
    

Cross examination

15. When cross-examined as to where he was when at the time, Mr. Gau confirmed that he was outside the hardware store gate when the gunman ran towards him. The gunman was running from 2-mile area. He testified that he saw the gunman because he was running towards him. He did see the gunman at the hardware store gate before he went inside and locked the gate. He was shown the CCTV footage for viewing. Upon viewing the CCTV footage, he pointed to where he was at the PNGFP hardware store gate when the gunman ran towards the hardware store gate. Mr. Gau said that the gunman was wearing long trousers, but he could not recall the colour of the trousers or shirt the gunman wore. He went to the police a day after the robbery, and he was shown the photograph. When questioned if he had viewed the CCTV footage previously. Mr. Gau stated that he never saw the CCTV footage before. It is being viewed in court for the first time. That is, he is viewing the CCTV footage for the first time.
    

Re- Examination

16. In re-examination, he reaffirmed that he was at the hardware store gate when he saw the gunman running towards the hardware gate. He pointed out to the Court, the Hardware store gate which he manned at the relevant time when the CCTV footage was played and viewed by the Court. He pointed out the point where he was standing at the hardware gate. He also pointed he pointed out the beer shop as being opposite to the supermarket. The bank is located a few distance towards the back of supermarket. As to question to having sufficient time to look at the gunman, Mr. Gau stated that he had sufficient time to look at the gunman and recognise him. He identified the gunman to the police as the person captured in the CCTV footage (at pointed 13.56 p.m., as the gunman running towards the gate and also the accused captured in photograph number four (4) that he was shown to him by the police to identify the accused person.
    

(5) First Constable Emmanuel Muriken

17. First Constable Emmanuel Muriken gave sworn oral evidence under oath in pidgin which was translated to English and was cross-examined.
    
18. In his testimony, he testified that First Constable Emmanuel Muriken states that he is a policeman and has served for almost 10 years. He testified that he is currently attached with National Crimes Intelligence Unit (NCIU) and has been with NCIU for the last 6 years.
    
19. He states that as part of his job with the NCIU, they normally receive intelligence from community sources and disseminate information to their other police personnel. The intelligence report they collect relate to both crimes and other matters. In doing their report, they categorise the information they receive and disseminate accordingly.
    
20. He testified that on 22 March 2022 at around 1.00 p.m., one of his colleagues, First Constable Robinson Dominic received information from a community reliable source that suspects involved in an armed robbery at the Bulolo BSP bank were drinking alcohol at Samos Street Papuan Compound in Lae. After receiving the information, they informed their supervisor Detective Chief Sergeant Manu Pulei. Their supervisor picked them up and they then drove to Samos Street. At Samos Street, they saw a group of men drinking SP brown bottle beer. They surrounded them and apprehended them.
    
21. In his testimony, he states that he can recall the names of the suspects as Allan Huayo, Jimmy Peter Uke, Ian Kinsim, Thompson Scorphil, Charlie Murou, Joe Peter. He states however that he cannot recall the name of the seventh person. However, all the suspects were taken down to the police station. He also states that before they left Samos Street, he took photographs of the suspects lying on the grass. He then sent the photographs of the seven suspects to the case officer based in Bulolo, Senior Constable Jack Kaman.
    
22. He also states that when they arrived at the police station, the police then questioned the suspects and the suspects told them that some of the money was for a Haus Krai contribution, but they used it to buy beer to drink. There was some other money they collected at Samos Street that suspect Jimmy dropped when he was trying to escape, he cannot recall the exact amount.
    
23. He states further that afterwards, they checked with Senior Constable Kaman, and he sent them the CCTV footage of the date of robbery. After viewing the CCTV footage, the identity of the accused persons was confirmed, and the police detained them. They then waited for the case officer to travel to Lae and formally arrest them.
    
24. Constable Muriken also testified that when he viewed the CCTV footage, he identified the one gunman running in from 2 mile past the hardware gate as the accused, Thompson Scorphil and Jimmy Peter Uke as one of the armed robbers standing on the getaway vehicle. He states that he is able to identify the accused Thompson Scorphil because he knew him since 2014 when he was posted to Lae. At that time, he was attached with the Police Prosecution that year and he used to escort him and other remandees from Lae Police Station to Courthouse for their cases.
    
25. Constable Muriken also states and confirms that he took photographs of the suspects during their apprehension and lockup at the police cells. He confirmed that the photograph on page 62 of the police brief as that of the accused, Thompson Scorphil. He tendered into evidence, the photographs which he took of each of the suspects at the Lae Police Station and marked them respectively as:
    

(1) Photograph number one (1) - Suspect Allan Huayo and his personal details

(2) Photograph number two (2) - Suspect Ian Kinsim and his personal details

(3) Photograph number three (3) - Suspect Joe Peter and his personal details

(4) Photograph number four (4) - Suspect Thompson Scorphil and his personal details

(5) Photograph number five (5) - Suspect Jimmy Peter uke and his personal details

26. He also testified that other items were discovered and recovered from the suspects at Samos Street, Papuan Compound are contained in the indemnity receipt which was completed and forwarded to the Arresting Officer. These items are identified and listed in the Indemnity Receipt which is marked as “Document No. 43”. The properties which were recovered at Samos Street include:
    

(1) Three (3) Class six (6) drivers’ licence
(2) a brown wallet
(3) dark brown focus cap
(4) string bilum with shells,
(5) a black cap
(6) a grey Newcrest Esky

27. First Constable Muriken also pointed out that the photographs on pages 68, 69 and 70 of the police brief/deposition are photographs that he also took of the suspect, Thomas Scorphil and he identified the accused Thompson Scorphil as the gunman running from 2 mile towards PNGFP hardware gate. Furthermore, he identified the suspect who he apprehended at Samos Street, as the accused Thompson Scorphil. He also states that at the time of the apprehension and robbery, the accused had big hair on his head but now the accused has cut his hair.
    

Cross – Examination

28. In cross-examination, Constable Muriken was asked as to how he had come to know the accused, Thompson Scorphil. He stated that he has come to know the accused, because the accused was previously arrested for an offence and he had appeared before the District Court in 2014, He is now appearing before the National Court.
    
29. Constable Muriken testified that in 2021, he apprehended the accused Thompson Scorphil for armed robbery but due to his absence in Port Moresby, the police brief was not completed, and the accused was discharged.
    
30. Constable Muriken also testified that the accused, Thompson Scorphil was again apprehended in 2022.
    
31. When put to Constable Muriken as to how he is able to identify the accused, Thompson Scorphil, he replied that he can clearly identified the accused by way the accused was running. He further confirmed that at the time of apprehension in 2022, the accused did not cut his hair and had big hair. He is positive that the person before the Court is the same accused person, Thompson Scorphil because he recognised the way, the accused is running and or walking. He is confident that he is able to still identify the accused because this was not the first time, he came across the accused in his role as a policeman. He also pointed out that he has viewed the CCTV footage which was sent to him by the case officer Senior Constable Kaman and the accused before the Court is the same person and he is positive he is and can clearly identify the accused as Thompson Scorphil. He confirmed that when he viewed the CCTV footage and was certain that it is the same person, who he apprehended as the accused. In the CCTV footage, the accused, Thompson Scorphil is wearing long trousers and slippers.
    
32. When put to him that he took the photographs to connect the accused to the crime at Bulolo, he replied that he did not take the photographs to connect the accused to the crime at Bulolo, but it is normal police procedures to take photographs and details of suspects as part of their police work.
    

No re-examination

(6) First Constable Robinson Dominic

33. First Constable Robinson Dominic gave sworn oral evidence under oath and was cross-examined. In his testimony, he states that he is a police man and has worked with the police for almost 8 years. He states further that he is currently attached with National Crimes Intelligence Unit (NCIU) for the last 7 years. He recalled on 22 March 2022 on a Tuesday around 10:00 a.m. he received a call from a reliable community source, who had called the previous night, but I did not answer the call. The Source told him that suspects involved in armed robbery at Bulolo BSP Bank are now at Samos Street, Papuan Compound.
    
34. He informed his boss, and his boss picked him up with First Constable Muriken and First Constable Hipom and they proceeded to Samos Street, Papuan Compound. When they arrived at Samos Street, Papuan Compound, they apprehended seven suspects. The seven suspects were drinking beer. They apprehended them and questioned them in relation to the Bulolo armed robbery. The suspects told them that they were given contribution money for a death at Samos Street. The left-over money, the suspects said that they bought some SP brown bottle beer and were drinking.
    
35. In any event, when they arrived, one of the suspects named Jimmy Peter Uke, saw the police approaching and did try to escape to a nearby residence, however, First Constable Hipom then gave chase, and the suspect was apprehended.
    
36. First Constable Dominic testified that the suspects who they apprehended are identified as: Allan Huayo, Jimmy Peter Uke, Ian Kinsim, Thompson Scorphil, Charlie Murou, Joe Peter, and another, who he does not know his name. The suspects were all taken down to the Lae Central Police Station. At the Police Station, photographs and details of the suspects photographs taken. These photographs and details were thereafter forwarded to the CID personnel at the Bulolo Police Station to confirm with the witnesses.
    
37. First Constable Dominic testified that Charlie Murou was later released with the other unnamed man. The other remaining suspects remained in police custody.
    
38. Constable Dominic also testified that sometime, later, the Bulolo Police forwarded to Chief Sergeant Manu Pulei, the CCTV footage of the alleged armed robbery and this CCTV footage assisted us in identifying the suspects. After viewing the CCTV footage, we were able to identify the accused. Thompson Scorphil and others including Ian Kinsim and Jimmy Peter Uke. He testified further that the accused Thompson Scorphil is the one wearing long blue jeans, holding firearm, and running towards the vehicle. He confirmed it is the accused Thompson Scorphil is the running gunman on page 62 of the Court file. He is positive of the identity of the accused the accused is known to him and his recognition of him dates back to 2021 when the accused was previously apprehended for armed robbery. Constable Dominic is positive that it is the same accused person, Thompson Scorphil now before the Court. He confirmed that the accused before the Court is the same accused who he apprehended in 2021. He identified and pointed to the accused in the accused dock, Thompson Scorphil.
    

Cross-examination

39. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he cannot recall the exact date when he apprehended the accused for armed robbery in 2021. He confirmed he did not deal with the accused because he was not the case officer, the case officer then was Ian Walit. He was positive however, that he is has identified the accused Thompson Scorphil in the dock as the same person who he apprehended in 2021 and again in 2022.
    
40. When put to him if he had viewed the CCTV footage. Constable Dominic confirmed that the CCTV footage was forwarded to the Lae Police from Bulolo Police. He is positive that the accused Thompson Scorphil is a person known to him. He has come across the accused, Thompson Scorphil since he joined NCIU in 2016 as a police officer. The accused, Thompson Scorphil is a known person to him in his role as a police officer. He is not mistaken.
    
41. When put to him if he found any money on the accused, Thompson Scorphil when he was apprehended, he replied ‘no’. He did not find any money on the accused when they apprehended him.
    

Re-examination

42. In re-examination, it was put to him if the armed robbery case in 2021 was struck out? He re-affirmed that the armed robbery in 2021 was struck out because he was in Port Moresby attending to duty travel. The case officer was Jack Walit, the committal brief was not completed and so the armed robbery case of 2021 was struck out.
    

(7) First Constable Augustine Hipom

43. First Constable Augustine Hipom gave oral evidence under oath and was cross-examined. Constable Hipom gave evidence that he is a police man and has worked for the police force for almost 7 years. He states that he is currently attached with National Crimes Intelligence Unit (NCIU) and has been for the last 3 years. He recalled on the 22 March 2022 around 1.00 p.m. they were at the office when First Constable Dominic, came to them and informed them that he has received information from a reliable source to who told him that suspects involved in robbery on 21 March 2022 at Bulolo were drinking beer at Samos Street Papuan Compound.
    
44. Upon receiving that information, he states that He testified that First Constable Dominic, First Constable Muriken and Detective Chief Sergeant Manu Pulei and himself drove down to Samos Street. When they arrived at the scene, one of the suspects ran away and he gave chase. He ran after the suspect, found him near a container and apprehended him. In the progress of running away, the suspect dropped some money. It was Four Twenty Kina notes. When he apprehended the suspect, he found K4200.00, a total of K4280.00 which he gave it to OIC Detective Chief Sergeant Manu Pulei. He identified this sum of money is referred to in Document No. 44, which is the indemnity receipt of the cash money, which was handed over to the arresting officer, dated 10 May 2022.
    

Cross Examination

45. In cross-examination, he confirmed that he gave the money to OIC Chief Sergeant Manu Pulei.
    

No re-examination

(8). Senior Constable Jack Kaman

46. Senior Constable Jack Kaman gave oral evidence under oath. In his testimony, he states that he is a police man here at Bulolo Police Station. He is attached with Criminal Investigation Division (CID). He has been in the police force for almost 23 years. Three years of which has been with the CID, Fourteen years with Mobile Squad and Five years with Public Safety.
    
47. He states that he has carried out an investigation into the report of armed robbery which occurred on 21 March 2022 at Bulolo BSP Bank where employees of the PNG Forest Products were held up in front of the bank when they went there to deposit company money. He states further that on that day, around 1:50 pm to 2:00 pm there were armed men who held up the security and took the company money. His superiors gave him the case to investigate after the robbery occurred.
    
48. He stated further that he went ahead to collect information from the PNG Forest Products security personnel who got injured and also went to the PNGFP security superintendent office to view the CCTV footage. He said that all these took place on Monday; he viewed the CCTV footage because he was informed that some robbers were from Lae, so he wanted to inform the Lae police to investigate as well.
    
49. He also testified that on Tuesday 22 March 2022, he received information that the robbers were located in Papuan Compound in Lae by the Lae Police. He also stated that he received 7 photographs of the suspects from the Lae Police. After receiving the said photographs of the accused through WhatsApp, he showed the photographs to the PNGFP security personnel victims asking if any of them could identify the suspects. He also states that previously, there was another incident in Wau as well. He confirmed to the court that it was the same group of people who are alleged to have committed an armed robbery in Wau. Because when he went up and showed photographs of the suspects to the witnesses in Wau, these witnesses were able to identify Allan Huayo and Ian Kinsim. He then printed the photographs and asked each witness of the PNGFP to come to his office to see whether they could identify suspects or not. He states that most of the witnesses cannot identify the suspects except one witness, that is, Peter Gau. Peter Gau was the only security officer who states that at the time of the robbery, he was stationed at the PNGFP hardware store gate. Peter Gau was shown the photographs and he identified Thompson Scorphil as the gunman running towards the Hardware gate. Peter Gau confirmed that he saw the accused at the service station running towards him. This person is sitting on the other side of the courtroom. After the witness Peter Gau identified the suspect. Senior Constable Kaman said that he took his story and made a police statement.
    
50. Senior Constable Kaman also testified that the robbery happened here in Bulolo, but the suspects were detained in Lae Police station, so he went down to the Lae Police station with the evidence to charge them and one of the suspect is the accused Thompson Scorphil now before the Court.
    
51. Senior Constable Kaman stated that he also viewed the CCTV footage taken on 21 March 2022 which captures the robbery. He states that it is visible in the CCTV footage that one of the gunmen is running towards the hardware store gate and this is corroborated by the evidence of Peter Gau (Exhibit “D4”). He is also positive that the photograph on page 62 that he received from Lae Police and took the snapshot of the image captured on the CCTV footage on Monday dated 21 March 2022 at and from the 13:56 pm which is contained in Exhibit “F1” is the CCTV footage. The photograph of the suspect, Thompson Scorphil is contained in page 63 of the brief which was to send to him by the Lae Police and is marked as Exhibit “F2”.
    
52. Constable Kamam also tendered into evidence; the photograph marked on page 65 of the police brief as that of the robber who tried to jump on to the white cruiser getaway vehicle during the robbery. This robber is carrying a bilum and wearing slippers as is visible in the image captured in the snapshot of the CCTV footage. Having possession of these materials, he travelled down to Lae Police Station Cell. Upon arrival in Lae Police, he states that he charged the five suspects for armed robbery and one of suspects who was charged is the accused, Thompson Scorphil sitting inside this court room opposite him.
    
53. He states that after charging them he collected all their properties that were in procession of them during the time of arrest. The items which he collected include a string bilum, one focus cap and a cash worth of K4820.00. He confirmed that he still has the properties taken from the suspects. He is positive that he charged the suspects who were apprehended by the Lae Police and one of those suspects is the accused, Thompson Scorphil currently before the Court. He confirmed that he conducted Record of Interview (ROI) at Buimo Correctional Institution with the accused, Thompson Scorphil and his corroborator is Reserve Police Constable Lime.
    

Cross Examination

54. In cross-examination, when put to him if he had been in contact with the accused before this offence, Constable Kaman states that he had never been in contact with the accused before the offence. He only came across the accused as a result of his investigation of the armed robbery in Bulolo and from photographs which were forwarded to him from the Lae Police which assisted him identify the accused and his accomplices.
    

No re-examination

DEFENCE CASE

(1) The Accused, Thompson Scorphil

55. The accused, Thompson Scorphil gave oral evidence under oath in his defence. He was cross-examined.
    
56. The accused testified that he is unemployed and that he resides at Papuan Compound for almost 20 to 25 years with his cousin brother. He also testified that he could recall back to Tuesday, 22 March 2022, he said that he slept for a while, got up and then went and was drinking beer that day with the boys. When questioned as to what he was doing on Monday, 21 March 2022, he states that he slept the whole day, and, in the afternoon, he went to play touch. In the afternoon, he joined the boys drinking beer as they all wanted to go to the haus krai.
    
57. When questioned as to what he did or was doing on Tuesday 22 March 2022 morning, the accused states that he went to the haus krai and in the afternoon at around 1 to 2 pm he met the boys drinking whom he confirmed that he knew. When the accused was asked as to how long he has known them, he replied that he had known them for a long time since his childhood. He wanted to go to the haus krai, but they called him to come, as they said, they also wanted to go the haus krai. They shouted for him, so he went to see them. He stayed with them for around 20 to 45 minutes. Whilst he was there with the boys, the National Crimes Intelligence Unit (NCIU) arrived. The NCIU police men apprehended them and took them to the Lae Police Station and charged them for armed robbery.
    
58. The accused in his evidence states that he saw the boys drinking beer and they told him to come to and join them. They shouted for him, so they gave him a bottle of beer, he told them to leave beer and he told them to go with him to the haus krai. At the same time the police arrived. The haus krai was at Samos Street, Tais street. He told the court that he hasn’t done anything but was just standing there with the boys when police apprehended them. He said that he and some other boys had contributed towards the haus krai for food and repatriation of the deceased body. He said the decision to contribute towards the haus krai was agreed by community leaders, fathers, mothers but however he was apprehended in the morning. When asked if he contributed any money towards the haus krai, the accused stated that he had only contributed K28.00. He cannot confirm how much his friends contributed.
    
59. When asked if he can recall if he saw First Constable Muriken who had already given evidence that he knew him since 2014. The accused told the court that he did not know First Constable Muriken as he tendered evidence, but he usually sees him when he drives to the market. He said First Constable Muriken only knew him during the Court matter, but he doesn’t know him or about his routine.
    
60. As to whether he could recall back to seeing First Constable Dominic, the accused replied, “yes”, I have seen First Constable Dominic. The first time, I saw him was in 2021 and that was when I was drunk, and First Constable Dominic apprehended me.
    
61. Overall, he swore to the name of Father God that he is innocent. He said he is innocent and the people who did the robbery paid their price. They are in Buimo Correctional Institution. He said he is paying their price. He states that there were four (4) people involved in the robbery, three (3) are in Lae, Buimo Correctional Institution, two (2) of them waiting for sentence whilst other one (1) is serving 8 years now. One of their accomplices is still in Bulolo and his name is Meckelvin. He said that's his story. He told the court that only four (4) people involved in the robbery, three (3) are in Buimo Correctional Institution, 2 are awaiting sentence and the other one suspect is still in Bulolo Cell.
    

Cross Examination

62. In cross-examination, the accused confirmed that his wife had died with child. As to securing any employment, he said that he was employed as a cashier in a China store in 2017 but that lasted for only three months. He is now unemployed from 2017 to 2023. As to how old he is, he said that he is 39 years old. He testified that he resides at Papuan Compound for almost 25 years with his cousin brother, Thomas Nambe who will vouch for him. He also said that from time to time he usually visits his family.
    
63. He agrees that he did not live with his cousin brother for the full 25 years as he travels to and from Markham Bridge to visit his family. He further confirmed that both his parents still reside at Markham Bridge till now. He confirmed that he travels to and from Markham Bridge and Papuan Compound.
    
64. He insists that on 21 March 2022, he slept the whole day at his cousin brother's house at Papuan Compound. His other cousins would confirm that. He told the Court that his cousin brother Thomas Nambe could vouch for him. He did not tell Senior Constable Jack Kaman that he was with his cousin brother in Lae, because he wanted to tell the Court.
    
65. He also told the Court and his friends’ names are Jimmy Peter Uke, Allan Huayo, Ian Kinsim and Joe Peter. They were the only four that were drinking beer, he went and met them around half past 12 at noon. When it was put to him that he was lying because in his testimony, he said 2:30 p.m. where he went to see his friends., he changed his answer again and told the Court that he cannot recall the time because he does not have a phone so he would not know whether it was 12:00 noon or 2:30 p.m. that he left the house. He however insisted that on 21 March 2022, he was at Papuan Compound. He was with his cousin. He also states that they could not travel to Bulolo and confirmed that because of bus fare issues. As to the type of clothes that he was wearing on the day that he was apprehended by police. He testified that he wore a long blue jeans and a round neck purple shirt when he was apprehended by the police.
    
66. When it was put to him if he did heard evidence and view the CCTV footage, he replied, No. He denied that wait was him, that is, the gunman running towards the gate at the PNGFP compound, Bulolo. When put to him if he heard the evidence of Peter Gau, who identified him as the gunman towards the PNGFP compound gate, he replied not true. When also put to him that he is identified as the man captured in Photograph No. 4, he replied that all the State witnesses made a mistake in identifying him. Even the policemen First Constable Muriken and First Constable Kaman were lying to the Court when they gave evidence that they identified him as the gunman running past the PNGFP Compound gate. When put to him that the photographs were taken by First Constable Muriken, he replied yes.
    

Re-examination

67. In re-examination, it was put to him if he saw the CCTV footage, he replied, only saw it here at Lae when they charged me and is here today.
    
68. The defence then closed it case.
    

Analysis of Evidence

Elements of Offence: Armed Robbery

69. To establish the elements of the offence of armed robbery, reference is made to the case of In The State v Dominic [2013) N5187, where the Court established these elements to be:
    

(1) the accused

(2) stole property with intention of permanently depriving the owner or person lawfully in possession of.

(3) was in company of others.

(4) was armed with dangerous weapon.

(5) at the time immediately before, during or immediately after the taking of the property wounded the person.

(i) The accused

70. The accused has disputed this element. He denies his participation and involvement in the alleged armed robbery. He says that at all material times of the date of the alleged offending; he was in Samos Street, Papuan Compound, Lae. He denies being in Bulolo at the material time.
    
71. To counter this denial, Ms Joseph for the State referred this Court to the opt quoted authority on identification, the case of John Beng v The State [1976] PNGLR 471 and submitted that there is evidence adduced during trial by four State witnesses, namely Peter Gau, First Constable Muriken, First Constable Dominic and Senior Constable Kaman which will go to show that the accused, Thompson Scorphil was at the material time of the alleged offending present at Bulolo. Ms Joseph also submitted that the evidence adduced will show that the accused, Thompson Scorphil participated and was involved in the alleged armed robbery. His participation and involvement are captured by both direct oral and documentary evidence.
    
72. In Beng v The State (supra) the Court held that where evidence of identification is relevant, the court should be mindful of the inherent dangers. There is no rule of law that says that the evidence of one witness is insufficient, nor is there any rule of law that says that there must be a police parade for the purpose of identification. Also, there is no rule of law that says that in every case, a warning ought to be given (to the jury). What the law is though, is that it all depends upon the circumstances of the case before the court: R. v Preston [1961] VicRp 115; [1961] V.R. 761 at p. 762 adopted and applied. The Court in Preston (supra) further held that where the identification relied upon is that of a single witness it is proper to be mindful that the identification "was critical, and that mistakes have in the past occurred in regard to identification, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice", and so the Court must be satisfied that the witness was not only honest but also accurate in the evidence given. Matters to be taken into account are, what opportunities the person identifying had to form a judgment of the identity of the person who committed the crime, the position of the parties when the identification was made, the lighting, the opportunities to form a judgment, and generally the circumstances in which the identifying witness formed his judgment as to identification.
    
73. I therefore warn myself of such inherent dangers in assessing the evidence in regard to the issue of identification in this present matter.
    
74. In The State v Robert [2022] N9395, the Court expressed the view that there is no provision in the Evidence Act (Ch 48) or the Criminal Practice Rules 1987 that provides for dock identification. It has been a practice adopted from the common law. At paragraphs 6 and 7, the court held that in-court identification, or dock identification, whilst admissible should be accompanied by prior identification in the form of photo boards or identification parades. Without such prior identification, the in-court identification or dock identification has very little probative value, especially when it is identification of a stranger.
    
75. To address this element, Ms Joseph also referred to the evidence of the State witness Peter Gau, who in his testimony was shown six (6) photographs that the police had taken when the accused persons were taken in for questioning. From the six photographs introduced to this witness in court, Peter Gau testified that he recognises the person in photograph No. 4. This is the person who he states that he recognised as the gunman running towards the PNGFP Hardware Store gate where he was stationed that afternoon. In his evidence, he testifies that that the gunman is running from the 2 Mile area towards him whilst he is standing guard at the PNGFP hardware store on the day of the alleged armed robbery. He also testifies that the gunman was wearing long trousers and a “t shirt, although he cannot recall the colour of the long trousers and t shirt. During his testimony, he was also shown the CCTV footage and he identified himself standing at the top left of the gate and the gunman running towards him, standing at the gate, thought of his life went back and locked the gate. He also states that he saw a white utility (land cruiser) vehicle that came in loaded with men carrying guns, and the gunman jumped onto the getaway vehicle, and they left.
    
76. This identification is supported by the evidence of First Constable Muriken and First Constable Dominic. Both Constables Muriken and Dominic also identified the accused, Thompson Scorphil as the gunman running towards PNGFP Compound gate. They both recognised the accused, captured in the CCTV footage (at point 13:56:50 to 13:57:23 of the footage). Further, Constables Muriken and Dominic have also adduced evidence in Court that they recognise and have come across the accused, Thompson Scorphil as the person before the Court. This is because, they have dealt with him and know in their respective roles as police officer. They both have apprehended the accused, Thompson Scorphil separately and jointly in 2021 and again in 2022. Their knowledge of the accused is part of their job as police officers, performing and carrying out their duties and functions. They as members of the NCIU also collect intelligence on matters of natural security, crimes (internal and transnational) and so forth and do act on these intelligence. Their job also involves gathering and collecting intelligence involving transnational crimes, it is not limited to domestic crimes.
    
77. Ms Joseph also urged this Honourable Court to note the fact that, not only did they identified the accused Thompson Scorphil in the CCTV footage, but they also identified Jimmy Peter Uke and Ian Kinsim, persons who they recognised in the CCTV footage image at the time of the robbery. Furthermore, at the time of the apprehension, they apprehended Jimmy Peter Uke, Ian Kinsim and Thompson Scorphil. This evidence is corroborated by the accused himself when he gave evidence that Jimmy Peter Uke and Ian Kinsim are now serving time at the Buimo Correctional Institution for the armed robbery.
    
78. Given all of the foregoing, I accept that the identification of the accused, Thompson Scorphil is not in issue. He is recognised (in CCTV footage at point 13:56:50 to 13:57::23) as the gunman running towards the PNGFP Hardware Store gate by State witness, Peter Gau, whose evidence is corroborated by First Constable Muriken and First Constable Dominic who also have adduced evidence to confirm the visual image of the gunman running towards the PNGFP Compound gate. Their recognition and knowledge of the accused, Thompson Scorphil as a person on is ased on their previous dealings with the accused, in that they have dealt with him in relation to previous charges laid by the police. Their involvement also includes having to perform escort duties whilst the accused was required to attend to his charges before the Court in 2014, 2016, 2021 and in 2022. Both Constables Muriken and Dominic have also adduced evidence of their participation in the apprehension of the accused, Thompson Scorphil regarding the alleged offending. The accused, Thompson Scorphil is a person known to both of them. He is not a stranger.
    

(ii) Stole property with intention of permanently depriving the owner or person lawfully in possession of

79. This element is non-contentious. The property is money valued at a sum of K108, 034.67. This is confirmed by the Statement of the Finance Manager, Mr. Malcolm Sabine dated 4 April 2022, the property of PNG Forest products. The cash was being transport by the security personnel to be deposited at the BSP Bank, Bulolo when they were held up, by the armed men. It is also alleged that from the sum of K108, 034.67 stolen, only the sum of K4280.00 was recovered when the police apprehended the suspects at Samos Street, Papuan Compound, Lae.
    

(iii) was in company of others

80. This element is non-contentious. The armed robbery occurred on 21 March 2022. It is visible in the CCTV footage that a group of men were already in the vehicle as they fled the PNG Forest Products company yard. It is also visible that two-armed gunmen are seen running down from the bank side of the company yard and attempting to jump onto the white utility land cruiser, the getaway vehicle. This getaway vehicle already has a number of men sitting in the cabin and outside on the back of the cruiser. One of the men hopping into the getaway vehicle is carrying a string bilum and another is carrying a gun.
    

(iv) was armed with dangerous weapon

81. This element is non-contentious. The armed robbery occurred on, 21 March 2022. The CCTV footage viewed projected the images of a group of armed men as they were running to hop onto the white utility vehicle as the vehicle fled the PNG Forest Products company yard. It is visible that two-gun men are seen running down from the bank side to get on the getaway vehicle. It is visible that the said getaway white vehicle has a number of both inside the cabin and outside the cabin. It is also visible that two other gunmen are seen running towards the PNGFP hardware store, who also managed to hop onto the running vehicle. It is also visible that perhaps others are still running and attempting to hop onto the vehicle.
    
82. Aside from the images captured on the CCTV footage, the evidence adduced during trial from the State witnesses, that is the security guards were that they were held up at the front of the Bulolo BSP Bank by robbers who were armed with guns and knives.
    

(v) at the time immediately before, during or immediately after the taking of the property wounded the person.

83. This element is non-contentious. The witness Christopher Kapun gave evidence that he was stabbed when he tried to get out of the vehicle in front of the bank, one of the robbers cut him using the knife.
    

Credibility of witnesses

84. The issue of credibility of witnesses is important in determining whose evidence is to be believed or whose evidence is more convincing. Is it the evidence of the accused that this Court should believe or the evidence of the State witnesses, Peter Gau, First Constables Emmanuel Muriken, Robinson Dominic, and or Senior Constable Jack Kaman. To appreciate and determine who this Court should believe, this Court should assess all the evidence before it. To do that, I have been referred to a number of cases which have dealt with the issue of credibility and the factors or guidelines to assist the Court arrive at a determination. I am grateful to Counsel for this assistance.
    
85. In State-v-Angosiwen (No. 1) [2004] PNGLR 1, Kandakasi, J stated;
    

“In so far as is relevant here, one of the applicable tests or principles is consistencies in a witness own evidence and other evidence called by a party. In State-v-Peter Malihombie [2003] PGNC 124; N236, I found amongst others that there were a number of inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. I found the inconsistencies serious enough to cast a serious doubt on the case against the accused. Many other cases have considered and applied this test. It emerges clearly from these authorities that where serious inconsistencies exist, there is the possibility of false testimony and therefore unsafe to act on.”

86. In The State v Cosmos Kutau Kitawai & Anor (No 1) N2266 , his Honour Kandakasi J (then) stated that:
    

“Logic and commonsense does not play an important part in either the rejection or otherwise of evidence before a court of law and whether or not an accused person should be found guilty."

A further relevant and applicable test for our purposes is one that requires a close examination of the witnesses’ performance in the witness box, usually known as the demeanour of the witnesses. The Courts have decided many cases in the past on an application of this principle or test”.

87. In State-v-Patrick (2004) PGNC 147; N2611 Sevau, J, stated that:
    

“In order to address these issues, the credibility of the witnesses and their demeanour are relevant. In this case, it is the victim’s words against the Accused’s words, so the Court is entitled to believe one witness and disbelieve the other...”

88. In The State v Paka [2016] N6914, Polume-Kiele J, the Court considered that to determine which version of the stories is credible depends on a number of Factors:
    

"Firstly, the degree of logic and common sense is, usually plays a big part in this process including the demeanour and performance of the witnesses in the witness box and consistencies in their evidence as established in Garitau Bonu and Rosa Bonu v The State (1997) SC 528; Peter Waragu Waranaka v Gabriel Dusava (2009) SC 980. Furthermore, having stated the above, it is equally important to note that a lying witness can be just as forceful and convincing and yet lying while a truthful witness can be so unconvincing in his story and his appearance and yet telling the truth: see Andrew Palili v The State (2006) SC 848J similarly there is no rule of law states that more witness called by a party and the more consistent or identical their stories given by that party who called only one witness. [ see State v Jacob Dugura Roy (2007) N3137]. The Complainant in the case of PAKA was a much more impressive witness than the accused. She gave her evidence clearly, calmly, and directly whereas the accused was evasive. A further relevant and applicable test for our purposes is one that requires a close examination of the witnesses' performance in the witness box, usually known as the demeanour of the witnesses. The Courts have decided many cases in the past on an application of this principle or test. In the case of State-v-Patrick (2004) PGNC 147; N2611 Sevau, J (as he then was) stated that:

"In order to address these issues, the credibility of the witnesses and their demeanour are relevant. In this case, it is the victim's words against the Accused's words, so the Court is entitled to believe one witness and disbelieve the other... "

Credibility of witnesses

89. So, in applying these principles to this present case, I accept that the first dent in the overall credibility of the accused as a witness is his legal defence, his evidence offends the principle of logic and common sense. It is overwhelmingly clear in his evidence that the accused was not truthful in his oral evidence. A number of inconsistencies are present in his evidence. I list them as follows:
    

(i) Notably, he was not truthful about the crucial element of his defence; that is, the date and time of the alleged offending. His demeanour was evasive and his responses to questions put to him were inconsistent. Firstly, in regard to his responses to his whereabouts on the date of the alleged offending; he testified that he was at Samos Street, Papuan Compound, sleeping the whole day on 21 March 2022. He later changed his story to say that he woke up in the afternoon and went to play touch. So apparently, the story about sleeping the whole day, cannot hold water. In this case, if one is sleeping the whole day, I must say that depending on what one means by a whole day, one needs to ask would the day commence when the sun rises at 6.00 a.m. and sets at 6.00 p.m. Sleeping from 6 am to 6 pm, that is some feat. I guess I can leave that to imagination.

(ii) Further, in his evidence relating to the date and time that he was apprehended on 22 March 2022, he said that he left the house in the morning to meet with the community to count the contribution for the Haus Krai at Tais area, Samos Street when the police came and apprehended him. He however, later changed his evidence to say that this occurred at 12:00 noon. He then further changed his story to say at he left the house at 2:30 p.m., to go and meet with the community to count the contributions but the boys called him to join them. These boys are his friends and they offered him a beer, but he told them that he was going to a haus krai and they then told him that they too will go to the haus krai, so he stayed and drank beer with them. Later about twenty to forty-five minutes later, the NCIU came and arrested them. The police took them to the police station and charged them for the armed robbery and he is now before the Court.

(iii) Another incident in his evidence occurred when First Constable Muriken was giving evidence and identifying the accused, Thompson Scorphil as a person (someone) that he knew in 2014, in 2021 and again in 2022. the accused stood up in the dock and objected to this evidence. Whilst I noted that the accused is allowed to object to questions put to State witnesses through his lawyers, I am of the view and accept the State’s submission that this conduct must be seen in the light of the accused’s demeanour and performance in the dock. Inference can be raised as to what his intentions were. Whether it can be seen as an attempt by the accused to hide the truth from being disclosed or raised? That is a matter which goes to the overall assessment of his demeanour and performance whilst in the dock. In that whether his demeanour is seen as an attempt to prevent the truth from being revealed and that he wants to cohere the witness and disturbing the witness evidence in relation to his evidence.

(iv) A further inconsistency in his evidence relates to his residential address. Earlier in his evidence, he stated that he had lived at Papuan Compound all his life. Later on, he changed his story to say that he visits his parents at Markham Bridge every now and then and then goes back to live with his cousin brother at Papuan Compound where he has lived for 25 years. This evidence basically contradicts his earlier statement which he says that he had lived all his life at Papuan Compound. He then says that he has a home at Markham Bridge where his parents reside. This evidence was not put before the Court and the State witnesses and also his lawyer during evidence in chief.

Deliberations

In order to arrive at a determination as to which of the evidence is to believe, I am guided by the principles set out in the cases alluded to earlier in this judgment: The State v. Kevin Anis & Martin Ninigan (2003) N2360 State-v-Angosiwen (No.1) [2004] PNGLR 1, The State v Cosmos Kutau Kitawai & Anor (No 1) N2266 ; State-v-Patrick (2004) N2611 and The State v Paka [2016] N6914

90. Having accessed the evidence adduced during the trial, I accept that the issue for determination lies in whose evidence is to believe. In this case, it is the words of the accused, Thompson Scorphil against the words of the State witnesses, Peter Gau, First Constables Muriken and Dominic and Senior Constable Kaman. So, I ask, who do I believe?
    
91. In applying all these principles to this present case, I find that the State witnesses were much more consistent and persuasive in their evidence. Each witness gave evidence more clearly, calmly, and directly. Each witnesses clearly identified the accused as the gunman running towards the PNGFP company compound gate (he is identified at point of time recorded at 13.56.50 to point 13.57:23 as captured in the CCTV footage). It is visible in the CCTV footage that the gunman is wearing long trousers and a t shirt. The CCTV footage captures the moment that the armed robbers are running towards the PNGFP Compound gate and eventually are also seen jumping onto a white land cruiser (open back) getaway vehicle which is already loaded with some armed men as well. It is clearly visible in the CCTV footage image that several armed robbers, including the accused, Thompson Scorphil are seen, running and jumping onto a white land cruiser (open back) getaway vehicle. Apart from witness Peter Gau, First Constables Muriken, Dominic, and Senior Constable Kaman are all police officers. They each have adduced evidence of their dealing with the accused, individually in their roles as police officers. The accused, Thompson Scorphil is identified by each of them as the gunmen running towards the PNGFP Hardware gate and the PNGFP Company Compound gate. All are familiar with the accused and have each identified him as the gunman running towards the PNGFP Compound gate on the date of the alleged offending as captured in the CCTV footage image at point 13:56:50 to point 13:57:23 of the footage. Each of the policemen have also identified the accused as the person captured in Photograph No. 4 in the police brief and tendered into evidence. Witness Peter Gau has also identified the accused, Thompson Scorphil as the person captured in Photograph No. 4 of the police brief. Their evidence is consistent and believable.
    
92. Whereas for the accused, Thompson Scorphil, he was evasive in his responses to questions put to him. His evidence is so contradictory and inconsistent. Even his evidence adduced in Court put him within the knowledge of his accomplices, who he identified as Jimmy Peter Uke, Ian Kinsim who he says are already in custody and others are still in Bulolo. I accept that and am satisfied that these are matters which he alone has personal knowledge of. Given his demeanour and performance during trial, I am led to find that these inconsistencies serious enough to cast a serious doubt on his credibility. Where there are serious inconsistencies, there is the possibility of false testimony and therefore I am minded concluding that it is safe to find that the accused is unreliable and his evidence not credible. His story cannot be believed.
    
93. Given all of the above, I am satisfied and find that the degree of logic and common sense plays a big part in this process of analysing all the evidence including the demeanour and performance of the witnesses in the witness box and consistencies in their evidence: see Garitau Bonu and Rosa Bonu v The State (1997) SC 528; Peter Waragu Waranaka v Gabriel Dusava (2009) SC 980. Furthermore, I also mindful of the fact and bearing in mind that a lying witness can be just as forceful and convincing and yet lying while a truthful witness can be so unconvincing in his story and his appearance and yet telling the truth: see Andrew Palili v The State (2006) SC 848. Similarly, there is no rule of law which states that more witness called by a party and the more consistent or identical their stories given by that party who called only one witness: see State v Jacob Dugura Roy (2007) N3137].
    
94. Having accessed the overall evidence adduced during trial, I am satisfied that the accused, Thompson is clearly identified by Peter Gau, Constables Muriken, Dominic, and Kama as the person who is seen as the running gunman at point of time (13:56:50 to 13:57:23) captured in the CCTV footage during the armed robbery that occurred at the BSP Bulolo on 21 March 2018. Further identification is confirmed by photograph (No. 4) of the Court deposition tendered into evidence and in person (as person) identified in the dock that they each have been involved with having dealt with the accused, Thompson Scorphil in their respective roles as policemen.
    
95. Consequently, I am satisfied that the evidence adduced by the State is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, Thompson Scorphil did participate and was involved in the armed robbery which occurred on Monday, 21 March 2022 at the PNG Forest Products company compound between 1.00 p.m. and 2 .00 p.m.
    
96. As a related matter, I accept submission from Counsel for the State, Ms Joseph that there was clear breach of Brown & Dunn rule when the accused defence was not put to the two key state witnesses, First Constables Muriken and Dominic and further when he was interviewed during the record of interview by Senior Constable Kaman.
    
97. Consequently, the defence that he was at home is rejected by the Court. There was no Notice given, nor was this told to his lawyer to even put to the state witnesses. His only explanation was that he wanted the Court to hear this story. Yes, he has told his story, and the Court has heard his story. The Court in assessing the evidence adduced during trial has arrived at a conclusion that his story is unreliable and not believable.
    
98. In conclusion, by reasons of all the above, I am satisfied and find that the State has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the accused THOMPSON SCORPHIL did participate and was involved in the armed robbery that occurred on the 21 March 2022 at Bulolo BSP Bank between 1.00 p.m., and 2.00 p.m. The accused and his accomplices were armed and stole cash money in the sum of K108,034.67 being the property of the PNG Forest Products Company (PNGFP). Further, immediately after robbing the security guards of the company, the accused and his accomplices did use actual violence in that they stabbed one of the security guards namely Chris Kapun.
    
99. Having been satisfied that the prosecution has proven all the elements of the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, I therefore find the accused, Thompson Scorphil guilty of the offence of one count of armed robbery under s 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code Act as amended.
    

Verdict

100. Consequently, I return a verdict of guilty against the accused, Thompson Scorphil for one count of armed robbery under s 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Criminal Code and enter a conviction accordingly.
     

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