Anton Yani v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kapi DCJ, Sheehan J, Kirriwom J
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1999
• Citation: (1999) SC615
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1999
• Judgement Number: SC615

Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Sheehan J, Kirriwom J

Judgment Delivered: 25 June 1999

PAPUA NEW GUINEA SC615

[In the Supreme Court of Justice at Waigani]

SCRA 16 of 1999

BETWEEN:

ANTON YANI

Appellant

AND:

THE STATE

Respondent

Waigani: Kapi DCJ., Sheehan J., Kirriwom J.

22nd & 25th June 1999

Criminal Law — Practice and procedure — Allocutus — Statements which raise a defence — duty to clarify issue with counsel

A. Kintau for the Appellant

P. Kaluwin for the Respondent

25th June 1999

BY THE COURT: The appellant was charged with two counts (1) that on 18th July 1998 at Gordons he took away one Janet Mek against her will contrary to s 350 (1) of the Criminal Code (2) that on 18th July 1998 he had sexual intercourse with the said Janet Mek against her will contrary to s 347 of the Criminal Code.

On 9th March 1999, he came before Salika J. for trial. He was arraigned on both counts. He pleaded not guilty to the first count but pleaded guilty to the second count. The trial judge entered plea of not guilty on the first count and plea of guilty in respect of the second count.

Counsel for the State indicated to the Court that he would stand down the rape charge and proceed with the trial on the abduction charge. After a brief discussion, counsel for the State then offered no evidence on the abduction charge. The trial judge acquitted the appellant of the abduction charge.

In respect of the rape charge, counsel for the State then tendered the depositions in Court. After reading the depositions, the trial judge confirmed the plea of guilty to rape and sentenced the appellant to an effective period of five years imprisonment.

He has appealed against both conviction and sentence.

In respect of appeal against conviction, the appellant relies mainly on the ground that the trial judge erred in law in accepting a plea of guilty.

The law with regard to when a plea of guilty may be vacated is set out in The State v Joe Ivoro and Gemora Yavura [1980] PNGLR 1. The principles set out in that case were endorsed and applied by the Supreme Court in Gabriel Laku v The State [1981] PNGLR 350. In so far as it is relevant to the present case, if an accused person makes a statement subsequent to his plea of guilty which may throw some doubt as to the correctness of his plea, a trial judge should clarify the matter with counsel for the accused person and satisfy himself of the matter before proceeding to confirm a plea of guilty.

In the present case, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant on allocutus made a statement which made reference to a statement made in the District Court which raised the issue of consent. He submits that the trial judge erred in law in not vacating the plea of guilty in those circumstances.

On allocutus the appellant said the following:

"This is my first time to come before the National Court and also in God's eyes and the National Court. This is not at my own will. I look after this people. I was pushed by his own brother. I have mentioned everything and it is in my committal file. I have five children. My two children attend the High School and two in Community School and one back at home. This is not my will. I am worried about my family because...