The State v Jack Ostekal Metz (2005) N2824

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Manuhu AJ:
• Judgment Date: 24 February 2005
• Citation: (2005) N2824
• Docket Number: CR 274 of 2003
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2005
• Judgement Number: N2824

Full Title: CR 274 of 2003; The State v Jack Ostekal Metz (2005) N2824

National Court: Manuhu, AJ

Judgment Delivered: 24 February 2005

N2824

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CR. 274 of 2003

THE STATE

-v-

JACK OSTEKAL METZ

Madang : Manuhu, AJ

2005: February 22 & 24.

SENTENCE

Criminal law – Particular offence – Obtaining goods and credit by false pretence –False representation to guest house – Systematically obtain goods, services and credit valued at K70,445.36 for eight months - Guilty plea – Sentence of three and a half years appropriate.

Cases cited in the judgment:

The State v Paul Takesi [1997] PNGLR 507.

The State v. John Kil (2000) N1974 (Unreported).

Wellington Belawa v. The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496.

Counsel:

Mr. M. Ruarri, for the State.

Ms. A. Turi, for the Prisoner.

24 February 2005.

MANUHU, AJ: The Prisoner, Jack Ostekal Metz, pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining goods or credit by false pretence, which carries a maximum penalty of five years.

On 3rd December 2001, the Prisoner falsely represented to the manager of Dalcrest Guest House in Madang that he was expecting payment in millions of Kina from the sale of Treasury Bills. The payment, he represented, would be made by Bank of Papua New Guinea directly into his then PNGBC account. Believing this, the manager permitted the Prisoner to obtain cash, was accommodated, had meals and drinks, took cigarettes, and had extra guests at Dalcrest Guest House from 3rd December 2001 to 31st July 2002. During this period, the Prisoner incurred a bill of K70,445.36, which he was not able to settle when he checked out.

The Prisoner, a mature man of thirty six years, is a first offender who pleaded guilty, co-operated with police, and expressed remorse in his allocatus. I cannot, however, think of anything else that will further mitigate the Prisoner’s wrongdoing.

The amount is substantial. From the victim’s point of view, no amount of remorse and apology can restore such substantial amount. The guest house would want restitution but the Prisoner has not made any payments and is in no position to make any restitution. In addition, this was not a one-off offence. The crime was pre-meditated and was carried out systematically and fearlessly, and with the assistance of others, over a period of eight months. While the Prisoner is a first offender, what he did seems to be the work of an expert.

In all the circumstances, a custodial sentence is warranted. The factors of mitigation are outweighed by the circumstances of aggravation.

Sentencing trends are difficult to determine. False pretence...