State v Nason [2024] PGNC 80; N10743 (19 March 2024)

N10743

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) 130 & 131 OF 2022

THE STATE

V

ELIAS NASON AND JIMMY PEPENA

Waigani: Berrigan J
2024: 19^th March

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – OFFICIAL CORRUPTION – Section 87(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Criminal Code – Elements of Offence - Employed in the Public Service for the purposes of s 83A – Charged by virtue of that employment – Received property or benefits for himself – On account of any thing done or omitted to be done or to be done or omitted to be done – In the discharge of the duties of his office – Corruptly - Offence established against one accused.

Cases Cited
Maraga v The State (2009) SC968
James Pari & Bomai Tine Kaupa v The State [1993] PNGLR 173
State v Toamara [1989] PNGLR 24
State v Mataio (2004) N2531
State v Duncan [2015] PGNC 279; N5010
Brian Kindi Lawi v The State [1987] PNGLR 183
Wartoto v State (2019) SC1834
Havila Kavo v The State (2015) SC1450
Banaso v The State (2022) SC2302
S v Gamato and Hetinu (2021) N9250

References Cited
Sections 83A, 87 of the Criminal Code
Section 188 Constitution

Counsel
Ms L Ilave, for the State
Mr J Kolowe, for the accused

DECISION ON VERDICT

19^th March 2024

1. BERRIGAN J: The accused, two police officers, are charged with corruptly receiving cash for themselves in the sum of K350 on account of releasing Dr Scotty Kandelyo from their custody, contrary to ss. 87(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Criminal Code. It is the State case that Elias Nason received the monies and Jimmy Pepena aided him to do so.
   
2. Elias Nason admits that he received K350 from Dr Kandelyo but denies any wrongdoing. Jimmy Pepena denies any involvement.
   

STATE CASE

3. Dr Scotty Kandelyo is an emergency physician with Port Moresby General Hospital. Since 2018 he has been the Deputy Chief Emergency Physician for Momase and Highlands Region. At the time he was working in Port Moresby at the National Control Centre for Covid 19.
   
4. On 3 October 2021 he went to Ela Beach with his wife, Dr Rose Morre, and an uncle. At about 7 pm whilst driving home he was stopped by police on the way to Konedobu. Officers told him that his tail lights were not working and directed him to follow them to the downtown police station at Konedobu.
   
5. He, his wife and uncle were taken to a room by at least three officers. Whilst one of the officers was taking his details, an officer he identified as Jimmy Pepena, came in and screamed at his wife and uncle to switch off their phones. When the complainant objected, Pepena said in pidgin: “Your knowledge is rubbish. I will lock you behind the prison and you will smell the “pek pek” of the prison”.
   
6. An officer, who later became the arresting officer, and whom I am satisfied on the evidence was Senior Constable Amex Elia, questioned him for three or four hours until 1130 pm. The complainant repeatedly told him that he did not check his tail light and admitted that he was at fault. SC Elia told him that he could pay. The complainant said that he would pay whatever the penalty was but he would not pay without a receipt. SC Elia told him that the receipt book was not there but at Boroko. He asked him if they could go to Boroko and pay. SC Elia said yes but if they go to Boroko it is another police station and they will arrest him.
   
7. From time to time during that time SC Nason, whom the other officers called “boss”, asked him if he had any last words to say. He told both SC Elia and SC Nason on several occasions that he was at fault and that he was willing to pay but that he would not pay without a receipt. Both SC Nason and SC Elia told him that he could pay but they do not have receipts. He told them he cannot just pay. Both SC Nason and SC Elia told him that if he cannot pay they will take him to Boroko Police Station but if they take him to Boroko he will be formally arrested.
   
8. It was getting late and he asked them how much it would cost. SC Elia told him it would cost K1000. SC Nason told him to withdraw cash from the ATM outside the station. He refused. They asked him to go and get the cash a second time. He did not want to but he was afraid to refuse. SC Nason appeared to be drunk. He withdrew K1000 but he did not give it to them because that would have been bribery. They continued to ask him if he had any last words before they arrested him. He told them he was sorry, he would pay if they had any receipts.
   
9. Towards 11 pm or 12 am they formally arrested him and took him to Boroko cells to lock him up. When they walked in to Boroko Police Station the officer working there asked what the charge was. The complainant told him it was a traffic offence and the officer said: “That is a big offence. You will be locked up for 6 months.” The officer then told SC Nason and SC Elia that the cell was very full and to take him back downtown.
   
10. He was standing outside Boroko Police Station with SC Nason and SC Elia. It was 12 or 1 am in the night. They were both drunk and he did not want to go back downtown with his wife or be taken to the cells, so he told them that he would give them the moneys. He asked them how much they wanted and they said K500. He said K300 and they said add money for fuel, so he gave K350. SC Nason said words to the effect: “The case is still fresh. Call me in the morning. Put the double blinker on and go home.” SC Nason gave him a number but refused to provide his name.
    
11. He had been kept in the cell for 3 or 4 hours then taken to Boroko and the officer at Boroko made it worse by saying 6 months. He feared for his life and he made a decision. It started at the police station. They did not directly ask for money but kept on asking if he had any last words to say. It was clear they wanted money which he denied until 1 am when he feared for his life.
    
12. He could not sleep. He was working under the National Control Centre reporting to the Controller for Covid, David Manning. Early in the morning he sent an email to the Controller David Manning reporting what had happened. He had to report to him why he was not coming in. He was aware that Manning was also the Police Commissioner. Insp Terry called him at about 8 am and he provided details.
    
13. Dr Rose Morre Kandelyo is a paediatrician. At the time she was working with the NCD Provincial Health Authority. She is currently Deputy Director Public Health. On Sunday, 3 October 2021 at about 7 pm as they were driving towards Konedobu they were stopped by police who told them that their tail lights were not working and directed them to follow them back to the police station.
    
14. At the station, in the presence of SC Elia and two other policemen, whom I am satisfied were SC Nason and C/Pepena, the complainant was asked to give his identification and place of work. SC Nason and Pepena appeared to be drunk. They smelt of alcohol and had red eyes. Her husband told the officers that he was in the wrong, he did not notice that the tail lights were not working and he would pay the charge. He asked for a receipt. C/Pepena was screaming and swearing and her husband could not speak. The officer screamed at her and her uncle to put their phones away and leave but they did not. Pepena told the complainant that he was a police officer for 28 years and that he should respect him. SC Elia questioned her husband from 7 pm to 11 pm. He was writing notes but she does not know what the notes were. From time to time, SC Nason, whom others referred to as “boss”, would come and ask the complainant if he had any last words. The complainant kept saying that he wanted to pay but he needed a receipt. They told them that they did not have a book there and to go and get money from the ATM at BSP. Her husband did that but he kept the money in his pocket and continued to ask for a receipt. At about 1130 pm they told them to get into their vehicle with a police officer and to drive to Boroko Police Station. She is not able to say who the officer was who got in the vehicle with them as it was dark.
    
15. SC Nason and SC Elia accompanied them to the station. At the station SC Nason and SC Elia spoke to the officer at the cells. He said that the cell is full and told them to take him back to Konedobu. It was late and she was getting very scared. She told her husband to please sort it out so that they could go home. SC Nason said okay and asked for K500. Her husband gave SC Nason K350 - 3 K100 notes and a K50 note. SC Nason told them that the case is still fresh, to put the double blinker on and to go home. SC Nason gave a number but refused to give his name.
    
16. Her husband was traumatised and could not sleep. In the morning he sent an email to Controller Manning to explain why he could not go to work.
    
17. Inspector Apollos Terry, 39 years standing with RPNGC, has been in charge of the Internal Affairs Directorate for five years. He received a complaint from the complainant on 4 October 2021 that two officers extracted K350 cash from him. He checked with the station commander at Konedobu to find out who was on duty that night and subsequently called both accused to his office where they admitted receiving the money and gave K350 to him in cash.
    
18. Prior to 2021 bail could be paid by cash but from 2021 bail must be paid by eftpos not in cash. As a general rule a person arrested is to be taken to Boroko cells where they may be bailed by the station commander or the cell supervisor. A receipt is issued together with a bail form, a copy of which is given to the accused. Bail must be paid prior to leaving the station. There is no power to release a person to go home and return the next day to complete bail if the station commander or supervisor is not available. If the cell is full then the detainee is to be taken back to the substation holding cell.
    
19. A broken tail light is a very minor traffic offence. There was no need to arrest anyone. A TIN could have been issued. Traffic infringement notices (TIN) may be issued on the spot and paid at the Finance Department. TINs are issued from books issued to Traffic officers.
    
20. The State tendered a statement from Amex Elia together with an operation card, charge sheet and two charges against the complainant. The defence rely on his evidence to show that the complainant was formally charged at Konedobu. The other evidence on that point is by no means clear and as will be seen below SC Elia is implicated and his evidence must be treated with caution. The issue should have been clarified by the State and in the circumstances I will give the accused the benefit of the doubt on this matter and proceed on the basis that the complainant was formally charged at Konedobu that night.
    

DEFENCE CASE

21. Senior Constable Elias SC Nason, 51 years old, is a police officer of 29 years standing currently attached to Town Police Station.
    
22. On 3 October 21 he was on duty from 3 pm to 11 pm. He was on patrol in the company of Jimmy Pepena, the arresting officer, Amex Elia, and driver Robin, driving towards Konedobu when they saw a blue Landcruiser without lights and brought him to the station in town. The complainant admitted when he was pulled over that he had defective lights. At town SC Elia took the lead. He asked several questions and did a formal charge. After the reports from SC Elia, SC Nason asked the complainant if he would like to present any more things to say and he said no and he told him that we are going to move to next phase that is at Boroko to detain him at the cell. He did not know if the arresting officer mentioned K1000 to the complainant but he told the complainant that Boroko might have some problems so he had to withdraw money and keep it with him. He denied being under the influence of alcohol.
    
23. It was during Covid 19 and so he told the other officer to hop on to the complainant’s vehicle. At Boroko they explained that the suspect was charged with a traffic offence. They were told that there was a restriction in place and they could not accept the complainant and to take him back to the sub-station. At the same time the cell was full. The bail officer is the station commander but he was not around. It was a bit late. It was towards 10 or 1030 pm. He needed to pick up the oncoming shift as well.
    
24. He came outside with the arresting officer. He told the arresting officer it was still fresh. The complainant gave him K350. He gave the complainant his and the arresting officer’s numbers and told him to call them in the early hours of the next morning. The town police station was not in a good condition. He realised that the complainant was a senior professional, a “big boy” in the hospital, and so he said it is not good for you people to go to town. The complainant told him to take K350. He told the complainant that “Your case is still fresh. Since we have the problem here, especially with the cell, station commander not at station”. The complainant gave K350 to them as a surety. So he gave his number and the arresting officer’s number and told him to call him first thing in the morning so that formally they could do the bail or TIN or something like that but the charge was already there so he told the complainant to come and sort out bail.
    
25. The complainant did not call him. He was picked up at his house at 830 am. He was still asleep. He was taken to Boroko where he told Inspector Terry that he still had the money with him. He was asked to give a statement. He told Insp Terry that all members are scattered and so the next day they would come back to him together. He spoke to the other members and on 5 October, Pepena, Robin, SC Elia went to Boroko and gave K350 to Insp Terry together with the operations message card, charge sheet and the two charges they charged the complainant with.
    
26. At downtown, he did not go in to speak to the complainant until the file was complete. He was at the counter. When it was complete he asked the complainant if he had any last words. It took a long time at the station. They did not drag it on at the station. The complainant was a doctor, he told them he was with the Commissioner, he was playing smart games and it took 2 or 3 hours to deal with him. He did not hear Pepena yell at them. He did not ask for a bribe. They were not carrying arms. They did not assault or threaten the complainant. He did not ask the complainant for money. The complainant offered it. They could formally charge or issue a TIN for a traffic offence. They did not issue a TIN because they had no TIN receipt book with them, they are with Traffic. They did not go to the Traffic Police because he delegated his power to the arresting officer and he used his discretion to carry out the arrest.
    
27. He was the most senior officer on duty that night at downtown. He left the police station attended by reservists to take the complainant to Boroko Police Station. He did not return downtown. It was the end of their shift. They dropped off and picked up the incoming shift.
    
28. Jimmy Pepena, 50 years old, is also police officer of 29 years standing attached to the Town Police Station. On 3 October he worked the 3 to 11 pm shift. At about 730 pm they pulled over the complainant over kindly and nicely about his defective tail lights and then escorted him to the police station. Whilst going in to the interview room the complainant was disrespectful and they had a bit of an argument. The complainant told him he was working with Commissioner. He told the complainant to put off his phone. He did not swear or use bad language, he just told him he was a bit disrespectful and told him to sit down quietly. He left and continued with the patrol.
    
29. Between 9 and 10 pm he returned to the station. SC Elia had completed the court files. The complainant was escorted to his vehicle. He got into the complainant’s vehicle and they went to Boroko Police Station to detain him. At Boroko Police Station he stayed back with the police vehicle in the car park with Robin Kwasa. SC Nason, SC Elia, the complainant and his family went to the cells. He saw them come back out a short distance but he does not know what happened. Time was up for the shift and so they decided to leave and were dropped off home. Very early the next morning Insp Terry came to the house and told him to come and provide a statement. He does not drink. He quit beer in 2017 following a sickness.
    
30. The complainant was agreeable when he was pulled over and said that he was in the wrong. He went with them to Boroko because it was time for the handover of shifts. There was a fuel problem as well. They normally leave their shift one hour early to do pick ups.
    

OFFICIAL CORRUPTION

31. Section 87(1) of the Criminal Code provides that:
    

(1) A person who–

(a) being–

(i) employed in the Public Service, or the holder of any public office; and

(ii) charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of that employment or office, (not being a duty touching the administration of justice),

corruptly asks, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit for himself or any other person on account of any thing done or omitted to be done, or to be done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office; ...

is guilty of a crime.

32. To establish the offence of official corruption contrary to s 87(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Criminal Code the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused:
    
    • (a) being employed in the Public Service or the holder of any public office;
    • (b) charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of that employment or office (not being a duty touching the administration of justice);
    • (c) corruptly;
    • (d) asks, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain;
    • (e) any property or benefit;
    • (f) for himself or any other person;
    • (g) on account of any thing done or omitted to be done, or to be done or omitted to be done by him;
    • (h) in the discharge of the duties of his office.
      

S v Gamato and Hetinu (2021) N9250 at [76].

CONSIDERATION

33. I will deal with the allegation against SC Nason first.
    

Employed in the Public Service

34. There is no dispute and I find beyond reasonable doubt that SC Nason was employed in the Public Service. The Police Force is a State Service established under or by authority of Section 188 (Establishment of the State Services) of the Constitution for the purpose of s 83A(c) of the Criminal Code.
    

Charged by virtue of that employment

35. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that SC Nason was charged by virtue of that employment with the custody of Dr Kandelyo. He was the officer in charge at Konedobu Police Station that night. It was upon his direction and under his supervision that Dr Kandelyo was detained on the road and at the town police station and later conveyed to the Boroko Police Station. The complainant was in his custody at all times including when he received the monies from him.
    

Received, property, for himself or other persons

36. In making the following findings I have considered the evidence of all parties having regard to the content of the evidence of each witness, on its own and in the context of the evidence as a whole, together with the demeanour of each witness whilst giving evidence, and bearing in mind that I may accept or reject any part of a witness’ evidence: Maraga v The State (2009) SC968; James Pari & Bomai Tine Kaupa v The State [1993] PNGLR 173.
    
37. Dr Kandelyo and Dr Rose Morre both impressed me as witnesses of truth. Both were clearly traumatised by the events of that night and both became emotional whilst giving evidence, which emotion I accept was genuine. Rose was clearly frightened both for her husband and for her own security. Both made reasonable concessions and their evidence was consistent in all key respects. Insp Terry was an impressive witness and his evidence is not in any real dispute, although on SC Nason’s own admission he did not hand the cash over to him until 5 October.
    
38. Having heard and observed each of SC Nason and C/Pepena I am unable to accept them as witnesses of truth. SC Nason’s demeanour was poor. He was argumentative. He tried to minimise the time the complainant was held at Konedobu and I reject his evidence that the delay was due to the complainant. His evidence was vague and unconvincing. As for C/Pepena his evidence was at times contradictory and at others fanciful. Some of it appeared to have been tailored in response to evidence which had been already led. Particular aspects of their evidence is dealt with below.
    
39. There is no dispute that the accused received K350 from the complainant. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the following facts and circumstances that SC Nason received the monies for himself.
    
40. SC Nason is a mature man with many years of experience in the RPNGC. At about 7 pm on 3 October 2021, the complainant, his wife and uncle were stopped on the road by SC Nason and his officers for having a broken tail light. On the evidence of all concerned, including SC Nason and C/Pepena, the complainant was cooperative. The complainant immediately admitted that he was not aware that he had a broken tail light and that it was his fault. The complainant, his wife and uncle were directed to the down town police station. The complainant was deprived of his personal liberty at the time he was directed by police to the station. At that moment he was entitled to be informed of his rights under s 42 of the Constitution: The State v Mai and Avi [1988-89] PNGLR 56. At no stage was the complainant informed of his right to speak to a lawyer. Assuming SC Nason was unaware of that requirement, at no stage did he or any other officer identify themselves by name or rank. By his own admission SC Nason was the most senior officer on shift. By SC Nason’s own admission the complainant was held in custody at his direction and under his supervision. At an early stage whilst the complainant’s details were being taken C/Pepena yelled at the complainant’s wife and uncle to turn off their phones. C/Pepena used offensive language to threaten to lock up the complainant at the back of the cell. Whilst there was some time when SC Nason was not present in the room he was aware, and it was under his supervision, that the complainant was questioned for several hours over the simple matter of a broken tail light. SC Nason went into the room on several occasions during that time. The complainant told him on several occasions that he was at fault, that he would pay the penalty but that he would not do so without a receipt and that he would not pay a bribe. SC Nason told the complainant that if he required a receipt they would have to take him to Boroko cells where he would be detained. SC Nason told him twice to go and withdraw cash from the ATM outside the police station. SC Nason was aware that the complainant had gone to the ATM outside the station. Bail can only be paid at Boroko police station via eftpos and not in cash. SC Nason appeared to have been drinking. SC Nason asked the complainant several times if he had any last words to say before he was arrested. The complainant maintained that he was willing to pay the fine but he just needed a receipt.
    
41. It is clear that the complainant was detained in the above circumstances in an effort to extract cash from him for SC Nason and perhaps other officers, in particular SC Elia. In short, the complainant maintained that he would pay a fine but not without a receipt. SC Nason himself told him that he could pay cash but they would not issue a receipt. If he wanted a receipt they would have to go to Boroko where he would be formally arrested and detained. It was clear – give us the cash and we will release you without charge and without receipt.
    
42. Thereafter the following facts are also relevant. The complainant was held until between 11 and 1130 pm before he was charged. That is until about the end of the shift SC Nason was supervising. The complainant was then taken to Boroko cells. An officer was placed inside the complainant’s own vehicle, with the complainant, his wife and uncle. The vehicle was accompanied by a police vehicle. At least four officers accompanied the complainant to Boroko cells to be detained for the broken tail light.
    
43. At Boroko Police Station cells the officer on duty asked the complainant what the offence was. When the complainant told him it was a traffic offence, the officer told him that was a very serious offence and the complainant would be gaoled for 6 months. SC Nason remained silent. The officer told SC Nason that the cells were full and to take the complainant back to Konedobu. It was only then upon the desperate urging of his wife that the complainant told SC Nason that he would give them the money they wanted. SC Nason accepted the cash. He did so outside the police station in the car park. He did not provide any form of receipt. He refused to provide his name despite being asked to do so. He negotiated the amount to be provided. The complainant asked how much they wanted. SC Nason or the arresting officer said K500. The complainant refused and said he could give K300. SC Nason or SC Elia told him to add money for fuel. The complainant gave SC Nason K350 which he accepted. SC Nason made vague statements about the matter being “fresh”. He provided a number or numbers and told him to call first thing the next morning when it appears he was not on shift.
    
44. This was a traffic offence and a very minor one at that. There is a range of legislation governing traffic offences. I was not taken to any standard operating procedures issued to general duty police officers governing its implementation and the knowledge of the accused of such matters was not established.
    
45. Putting that aside, SC Nason cannot have it both ways. If they had no TIN book then on his evidence the only option was to charge the complainant and take him directly to Boroko cells. For obvious reasons that would not have taken hours and I reject his evidence that the complainant was responsible for the delay.
    
46. I don’t accept the evidence that the Station Commander was not present at Boroko Police Station or that any such thing was said. I accept Insp Terry’s evidence that the cell supervisor had power to grant bail in any event and SC Nason must have been aware of that given his position and years of service.
    
47. The receipt of monies must be seen in the context of the entire night’s events, including the repeated offer by the complainant to pay on condition of receipt, the statements that he would be detained if taken to Boroko, the direction for him to withdraw monies from an ATM, the eventual charging of the complainant at the end of the shift, and his delivery by multiple officers to Boroko cells. When the complainant finally offered some cash SC Nason haggled over the amount, took it and made deliberately vague and spurious comments which he had no expectation or intention of pursuing.
    
48. The totality of that evidence excludes the possibility that SC Nason received the cash other than for his own purposes. SC Nason knew exactly what he was doing. His conduct was designed to extract monies for himself from the complainant.
    
49. Whilst it is not necessary to my finding, it is further strengthened by the fact that SC Nason admitted that he did not deliver the cash to Insp Terry until 5 October, after he had met with his colleagues.
    
50. In short, the totality of the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the monies were received by SC Nason for himself. The evidence excludes any rational inference that he received the cash as a surety for bail.
    

On account of releasing the complainant from custody

51. I am further satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that SC Nason received the monies on account of releasing the complainant from custody. There is no dispute about that. As above, the dispute is whether he received it as a surety. For the reasons outlined above the evidence excludes that possibility beyond reasonable doubt.
    

In the discharge of the duties of his office

52. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that SC Nason received the monies on account of releasing the complainant in the discharge of his duties of office.
    
53. The accused was charged with the duty of supervising the custody of the complainant. He was charged with that duty the moment he took him into custody. It was in the exercise of that duty that he received money for himself on account of releasing the complainant. Receiving money for himself on account of releasing the complainant was an act done in the discharge of the duties of his office, albeit that was clearly improper.
    
54. For obvious reasons, the offence is not confined to cases where the act would, apart from the corrupt influence, be proper: State v Gamato and Hetinu (2021) at [131].
    

Corruptly

55. Finally, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that SC Nason corruptly received the monies.
    
56. The weight of National Court authority holds that “corruptly” means dishonestly: State v Toamara [1989] PNGLR 24; State v Mataio [2004] PGNC 239; N2531; State v Duncan [2015] PGNC 279; N5010. Cf State v Hetinu (2021) N9250.
    
57. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that DC SC Nason dishonestly received the K350.
    
58. The receipt of monies for himself on account of releasing a person from custody was clearly dishonest according to the standards of honest and reasonable people: Brian Kindi Lawi v The State [1987] PNGLR 183. SC Nason was a mature man and a police officer of some 29 years standing. I have no doubt given his age and experience that he fully appreciated that he was acting dishonestly or corruptly: Wartoto v State (2019) SC1834 adopting and applying Havila Kavo v The State (2015) SC1450; see also James Singo v The State (2002) SC700, The State v Gabriel Ramoi [1993] PNGLR 390, The State v Francis Natuwohala Laumadava [1994] PNGLR 291, The State v Andrew Ludwig Posai (2004) N2618, The State v Graham Yotchi Wyborn (2005) N2847, The State v Francis Potape (2014) N5773).
    
59. In summary, the combination of circumstances leads to the inevitable conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that SC Nason corruptly received K350 for himself on account of releasing the complainant from custody in the discharge of his duties of office.
    

JIMMY PEPENA

60. To establish liability against C/Pepena pursuant to s 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code the State must establish beyond reasonable doubt that: a) the offence was committed; b) the accused knew the essential facts constituting the offence, including where relevant the state of mind of the person who committed the offence; and c) the accused intentionally aided (assisted or encouraged) that person to commit the offence: Banaso v The State (2022) SC2302 at [97].
    
61. To my mind the entirety of events suggests a plan or understanding on the part of several officers, including the officer at the cells, to extract monies from the complainant.
    
62. I reject Pepena’s evidence that the complainant was disrespectful or that he said he would report them to the Commander. On C/Pepena’s own evidence the complainant immediately admitted his fault and accompanied them to the station. I accept the evidence of both the complainant and Rose that he raised his voice and swore at Rose and her uncle, and that he then threatened the complainant. I am sure that C/Pepena did so deliberately to intimidate the complainant and his family.
    
63. It is also possible that he intended by his outburst and then by his presence at Boroko Police Station to aid SC Nason extract cash from the complainant by contributing to a threatening environment, perhaps with the intention of benefitting himself. That is so even though he was not present at Konedobu Police Station for a long time after the complainant and his family was brought in and even though he remained in the police vehicle once at Boroko police station.
    
64. Ultimately, however, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of this in all the circumstances.
    

VERDICT

65. Elias Nason is found guilty of official corruption, contrary to s87(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Criminal Code.
    
66. Jimmy Pepena is acquitted of official corruption, contrary to s7(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Criminal Code.
    

Verdicts accordingly.
________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Accused