Joseph Rokpa v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kapi DCJ, Woods J, Los J
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1994
• Citation: [1994] PNGLR 535
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1994
• Judgement Number: SC467

Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Woods J, Los J

Judgment Delivered: 29 July 1994

SC467

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

SCA.164 of 1993

JOSEPH ROKPA

Appellant

v

THE STATE

Respondent

Mt Hagen : Kapi DCJ, Woods J, Los J

28 and 29 July, 1994

Paulus Kunai for Appellant

Joseph Kesan for Respondent

29 July 1994

BY THE COURT: The Appellant while employed as Cabinet Secretary in the Western Highlands Provincial Government in October 1991 applied for Provincial Government financial assistance through the Western Highlands Economic Development Fund Committee (W.H.E.D.F.) for K5,000. In his application he used the name GIP Farming citing his reasons as "the purpose of purchasing a generator for GIP Farming." His application was successful and in April 1992 he was given an advance for that amount. Subsequently however he used the money to buy various items — a washing machine, an electric stove, a TV screen, a video cassette recorder, an outdoor antenna, a generator, a deep freezer and a refrigerator. After these events he was charged with offence of misappropriation under s 383 A(1)a of the Criminal Code. He was brought before the National Court at Mt Hagen and was found guilty on the 13th December 1993 and on the same day he was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment in hard labour. One year of the sentence was suspended on the condition that the prisoner entered into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for two (2) years.

The appellant appeals from the decision of the National Court against his conviction. As against the conviction the appellant says that:

a) the trial judge erred in law in holding that the property in the cheque did not

pass to the Appellant after the W.H.E.D.F. Committee approved the appellant's application for financial assistance;

b) the trial judge erred in law in holding that the application of monies by the

appellant for the purpose other than the purpose for which monies were initially given was a dishonest application when such application was not prohibited by the guidelines governing the Fund;

c) the conviction was against the weight of the evidence adduced by the

appellant; and

d) the conviction was wrong in law.

To better deal with the grounds of appeal by the appellant, the consideration of the appeal must begin with the ground 3(c) and (d) of the appeal. In ground 3(c) the appellant says the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The appellant has not sought to challenge the basic findings of the facts by the trial Judge. There is therefore no issue in this respect. When the financial asssistance was granted by the W.H.E.D.F. Committee K5,000 was paid in...