State v Tony [2025] PGNC 399; N11534 (17 October 2025)

N11534

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) 73 OF 2025

STATE

V

DANIELLA TONY

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
3, 4 SEPTEMBER, 17 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW–SENTENCE –Guilty Plea-Obtaining Goods By False Pretence, s 404(1)(b) of the Criminal Code –Offender claimed to have gold bar and need money to make sacrifice to appease the spirits of the land–Obtained K5450- Sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed.

Cases cited
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487
Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496
The State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
State v Howa [2024] PGNC 273; N10940
State v Touna [2024] PGNC 272; N10939
State v Liligu [2016] PGNC 428; N6919
State v Rocki [2016] PGNC 427; N6918
State v Mariko [2015] PGNC 189; N6086
State v Boski [2014] PGNC 161; N5814
State v Agua [2011] PGNC 207; N4499

Counsel
S Joseph for the State
V Move for the offender

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1. WAWUN-KUVI J: Daniella Tony (offender), a 38-year-old mother of seven from Onerungka village in Kainantu, Eastern Highlands Province, spun a story about possessing a gold bar and needing funds for a ritual to appease the spirits of the land. Using this account, she persuaded the victim to provide K5450. After receiving the money, there was no gold bar or return of funds, and contact with Daniella ended. She was later seen in Goroka town by the victim, who then brought her to the police station, where she was arrested and charged.
   
2. She has pleaded guilty to these facts on a charge of obtaining goods by false pretence under section 404(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
   
3. I must now decide the appropriate penalty.
   

Purpose of Sentencing

4. I am reminded that sentencing has many purposes. There are numerous and include, punishment of the offender, rehabilitation, specific and general deterrence, communicating clearly that the community does not condone the offender’s conduct and in cases of violent and serious offences for the protection of the community.

Penalty

5. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
   
6. I remind myself of the principle in Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 that the maximum penalty is reserved for the worst case. The facts of this case demonstrate that this is not such a case.

Personal Antecedents

7. The offender is married and has 7 children. Her children are in primary school and high school. Her father is deceased, and mother lives with her family in their village. She has three brothers. All her brothers were killed in tribal fights.
   
8. She is a member of the Lutheran Church.
   
9. Her highest education was to year 9 at Kainantu High School.

Allocutus

10. She apologised for her actions and asked for leniency.

Appropriate range

11. While I accept that sentencing guidelines provide parity and assist in sentencing, I remind myself that it does not curtail my discretion. What is relevant for my consideration is the peculiar circumstance of the case before me: see Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487 and Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38.
    
12. The State submits the Court refers to the case of Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496 for guidance on the sentencing range. I agree with the statements of Berrigan J in State v Anthony [2024] PGNC 71; N10725, that the sentencing ranges in Belawa v The State have limited application in the present case given that misappropriation attracts a maximum of 10 years. To determine an appropriate range, I look towards recent comparable cases.

Submissions

13. The State submits that the Court imposes a sentence between the range of 2 and 4 years. Counsel for the offender submits a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
    
14. Counsel submitted the following cases:
    
15. State v Liligu [2016] PGNC 428; N6919, Polume-Kiele J: The offender pleaded guilty. He promised to give possession of a piece of land to the victim even though he had no intention of doing so. Trusting the offender's words, the victim made two payments totaling K6,800.00. The offender never delivered his promise by giving the land to the victim. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with orders for restitution.
    
16. State v Rocki [2016] PGNC 427; N6918, Polume-Kiele J: The offender pleaded guilty. The victim was a corrections officer and came to know the offender when he was serving his sentence. The offender informed him that he was a computer specialist. The offender son gave him a computer which he ran off with. A report was made to police, and the offender was subsequently arrested. He was sentenced to 3 years. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended.
    
17. State v Mariko [2015] PGNC 189; N6086, Polume-Kiele J: The offender pretended to the victims that he would purchase a used car on their behalf and asked them to make part payment Acting upon this representation, the victims gave K8, 500.00 in cash. He took the money but did not use it to purchase the vehicle. He was sentenced to 3 years, and the balance was suspended.
    
18. State v Boski [2014] PGNC 161; N5814, David J: The offender pleaded guilty to obtaining K12,000.00 from a victim by false pretence. As a Senior Rental Sales Representative, the prisoner promised to sell a vehicle to the victim at a staff price but failed to deliver despite receiving a deposit of K16,000.00. After leaving her job, the prisoner repaid K4,000.00. She promised to pay the balance of the money but did not. She was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Pre-trial custody was deduced, and the balance was suspended.
    
19. State v Agua [2011] PGNC 207; N4499, Kangwia AJ (as he then was): The offender was convicted following a trial. She obtained K76,700.00 for a claim over a house arising out of the Highlands Highway Rehabilitation Project (H.H.R.P). She was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment which was wholly suspended.
    
20. I have found other comparable cases:
    
21. State v Howa [2024] PGNC 273; N10940, Wawun-Kuvi J: The offender pleaded guilty. He induced the victim to give K5000 to an accomplice in the pretext of a loan. He benefited K2000. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
    
22. State v Touna [2024] PGNC 272; N10939, Wawun-Kuvi, J: The offender a 60-year man pleaded guilty to obtaining K6,000 from the victim. He pretended to the victim that he had land to sell when in fact he was only a caretaker. He was sentenced to time spent in custody which was 11 months and 2 days.
23. The sentencing trends suggests that an appropriate range in this case would be a sentence between 12 months and 3 years.

Culpability

24. There was a clear intent to defraud the victim. The offender took the money and went into hiding causing the victim to search for her. She is educated up to high school and attends church regularly indicating a clear understanding of her actions. Her culpability would be mid-range.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

25. In mitigation is her guilty plea, admissions and cooperation with police and that she has no prior convictions.
    
26. In aggravation, is that she took money while not significant to some people was significant to the victim who is a bus driver. His family have been affected by the victim’s actions. Also in aggravation is that the victim incurred additional cost searching for the offender. The offence is prevalent.

Consideration

27. There are many people now taking advantage of other people and taking their hand earned money. The offender is no different. While she claims to be a Christian under the same breath, she informed the victim that she need money to appease spirits of the land. The victim has asked that the offender be sentenced to imprisonment as he and his family have faced hardship over the loss of the money.
    
28. Considering all the foregoing matters in this decision the offender is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
    
29. She has been in custody since 19 September 2024, which makes his pre-sentence detention period 1 year, 3 weeks, and 5 days. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, that period is deducted and the offender shall serve 5 months and 2 days.
    
30. The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended. While the probation report is favourable and the offender community speak favourably of her, the offender took the money and was at large until she was spot by the victim. The victim has spent money trying to locate her and wishes for her imprisonment. She is young and has no medical issues, imprisonment for a further 5 months will not cause any hardship. Suspension not appropriate.

Orders

31. The Orders are as follows:
    
    1. The offender is sentenced to 18 imprisonments.
2. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the presentence period of 1 year, 3 weeks and 5 days is deducted, and the offender shall serve 5 months and 2 days.

________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor