State v Korakan [2025] PGNC 421; N11549 (22 October 2025)

N11549

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 174 OF 2025

THE STATE

v

ELIZAH KORAKAN

WABAG: ELLIS J
21, 22 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – ESCAPE FROM LAWFUL CUSTODY - s. 139 CCA – Sentence following trial – offender escaped from Police cells while on remand – surrendered the next day – Statutory minimum sentence of 5 years IHL imposed – 4 years 3 months suspended – 9 months balance of that term already served

Brief facts
The offender was arrested on 5 January 2023. He escaped on 15 February 2023. On 3 September 2024 his family members brought him to the Police station from which he escaped. On 6 September 2024 he was given a sentence of imprisonment for six months for that escape by the District Court.

On 6 September 2025, while in Police custody prior to his transfer to Baisu, the offender escaped but surrendered the next day. The offence for which the offender was arrested did not proceed behind the committal hearing.

Held
(1) The offence only involved the offender escaping and surrendering the next day.
(2) The statutory minimum sentence of imprisonment for 5 years had to be imposed.
(3) Of that sentence, 4 years and 3 months should be suspended.
(4) As the offender had already spent 9 months in custody referable to this offence, he was discharged.

Cases cited
Gima v The State; Arnold v The State [2003] PGSC3; SC730
Kumul v The State [2006] PGSC 3; SC839
Laki v The State [2005] PGSC 42; SC783
SCR No 1 of 1994; The State v Aruve Waiba (Unreported and unnumbered judgment of the Supreme Court, 4 April 1996. Los and Salika JJ)
State v Kumis [1997] PGNC 13; N1517

Counsel
J. Kesan, for the State
Elizah Korakan, the defendant, in person

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Elizah Korakan, of Keyas village in Wabag, Enga Province (the offender) was committed for trial on a charge of escaping from lawful custody. As he remained silent when the indictment was read, a plea of not guilty was entered in response to that charge, which was based on section 139 of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (the CCA), a charge which carries a minimum penalty of imprisonment for five years.
   
2. Section 139 is quoted below:
   

(1) A person who, being a prisoner in lawful custody, escapes from that custody is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: A term of imprisonment of not less than five years.

(2) An offender under Subsection (1) may be tried, convicted. And punished notwithstanding that at the time of his apprehension or trial the term of his original sentence (if any) has expired.

Procedural history

3. After receiving a letter from the Office of the Public Solicitor, about two weeks ago, indicating that the offender had not made any application to be represented by a lawyer from that office, the Court immediately replied to advise the offender to promptly make any arrangements for legal representation that he wished to make, as it was not likely that his trial would be adjourned if he failed to make any such arrangements.
   
4. When the indictment was presented, there was no lawyer present in the Court, other than the lawyer from the Office of the Public Prosecutor. After checking that the person in the dock was the offender, and that he wished to speak and be spoken to in the Engan language, the offender was asked if he was represented. He remained silent. When the indictment was read, the offender remained silent. In those circumstances, a plea of not guilty was recorded on behalf of the accused.
   
5. The evidence upon which the State relied was confined to the signed record of interview (Exhibit A) and the English translation of that document (Exhibit B).
   
6. The offender did not object to the tender of either of those documents and no evidence was relied on by the offender.
   
7. When provided with an opportunity to make submissions as to what should be the verdict, the offender again remained silent. The State’s case was said to be based on the answers to questions 22 and 23 in the record of interview, which were said to contain admissions.
   
8. As the evidence clearly supported the charge, a verdict of guilty was returned on the indictment.
   

Allocutus

9. After a conviction was recorded, the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions. The offender said no more than “I surrendered myself to the Police”.
   

Submissions

10. The offender did not make any submissions.
    
11. For the State, reference was made to Gima v The State; Arnold v The State [2003] PGSC3; SC730 (Gima) which considered the question of what portion, if any, of the minimum sentence should be suspended.
    

Relevant law

12. While s 139 provides for a minimum sentence of imprisonment for five years, the Court has a discretion to suspend the whole or part of that sentence, but only after imposing the minimum sentence: SCR No 1 of 1994; The State v Aruve Waiba (Unreported and unnumbered judgment of the Supreme Court, 4 April 1996. Los J and Salika J).
    
13. In Kumul v The State [2006] PGSC 3; SC839, the first instance imposition of the minimum sentence of five years, without any suspension, was confirmed. On the other hand, in State v Kumis [1997] PGNC 13; N1517 (Kumis) the minimum sentence of five years was imposed, but three years of that sentence was suspended.
    
14. As the offence of escaping from lawful custody is an affront to the legal system, it must be met with a stern punishment: Laki v The State [2005] PGSC 42; SC783 and Gima.
    
15. In Gima, like Kumis, the first instance decision was to suspend three years of the five-year minimum term, leaving a term to be served of two years. The appeal in Gima did not disturb the first instance decision. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Gima provided a non-exhaustive list of relevant considerations, which are recorded in the headnote as follows:
    • (a) a receipt of information by the escapee of a retaliatory killing of a close relative supported by a prison officer;
    • (b) any evidence of violent sexual attacks upon weaker and younger inmates by more aggressive inmates supported by prison officers;
    • (c) whether the escape was en mass;
    • (d) whether any weapon was used;
    • (e) where a weapon was used, whether any personal or property damage or injury had been occasioned,
    • (f) the expense to which the State has been put in order to recapture the escapee;
    • (g) when and how the recapture occurred; and
    • (h) whether there is a guilty plea, but this has to be contrasted against the chances of a successful denial.
      

Findings of fact

16. For sentencing purposes, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
    

(1) On 5 January 2023 the offender was arrested and charged with sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years (the original offence).

(2) On 15 February 2023 the offender escaped from custody, namely the police cells in Wabag (the first escape).

(3) On 3 September 2024 the offender was brought back to Wabag Police station by his relatives.

(4) On 6 September 2024 the offender was sentenced by the District Court to imprisonment for six months for the first escape.

(5) Later that day, while in Police custody awaiting transfer to Baisu, the offender escaped (the second escape).

(6) The offender surrendered the following day.

(7) The original offence was finalised by the District Court, without any penalty.

Circumstances of the offence

17. The offender was only at large for one day. No weapon was used. He surrendered to the Police. As a result, that there was no expense incurred by the State in recapturing the offender.
    

Circumstances of the offender

18. The record of interview suggests that the offender lived on his own at Keyas village and was neither married nor employed.
    

Consideration

19. While the accused did not enter a plea of guilty, he did not contest the charge and said that he surrendered to the Police. As was noted in Gima, a guilty plea carries less weight for this offence as the chance of a successful denial is slim. Since the not guilty plea was only entered by the Court due to the offender’s silence when the indictment was read, and since he said that he surrendered to the Police, the Court proceeds as if the offender entered a plea of guilty in response to the indictment.
    
20. There does not appear to be any reason why a sentence beyond the minimum term of five years should be imposed. Hence, the question becomes whether any portion of that sentence should be suspended.
    
21. As has already been indicated (1) the offender was only at large for one day, (2) no weapon was used, (3) the offender surrendered to the Police, and (4) as a result, there was no expense incurred by the State in recapturing the offender.
    
22. The lesson which this offender will learn, and which others should heed, is that escaping from lawful custody may result in a longer term of imprisonment than that imposed for the original offence which led to the arrest.

Sentence

23. As the offender was arrested on 5 January 2023 and escaped on 15 February 2023, he was in custody for a period of 1 month and 2 weeks prior to the first escape. From when he surrendered on 3 September 2024 until today (ignoring the period of less than a day relating to the second escape) is a period of 1 year, 1 month and 2 weeks. That gives a total period in custody of 1 year and 3 months. Since the offender was sentenced to 6 months for the first escape, the period he has spent in custody prior to today, referable to this offence, is 9 months.
    
24. For the reasons set out above, the Court imposes the minimum sentence of imprisonment for hard labour for 5 years.
    
25. Suspending 4 years and 3 months of that term reduces the period to be served to 9 months. As the offender has already spent 9 months in custody referable to this offence, there is no remaining period to be served, and the offender is discharged.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor