The State v Johnson Maurani (2008) N3560

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Davani J
• Judgment Date: 03 September 2008
• Citation: (2008) N3560
• Docket Number: CR 1162 of 2006
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2008
• Judgement Number: N3560

Full Title: CR 1162 of 2006; The State v Johnson Maurani (2008) N3560

National Court: Davani J

Judgment Delivered: 3 September 2008

N3560

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1162 of 2006

THE STATE

V

JOHNSON MAURANI

Prisoner

Alotau: Davani .J

2008: 2nd, 3rd September

CRIMINAL – sentence – stealing – theft from sawmill – s.372(1)(10) of Criminal Code Act

SENTENCE – stealing – guilty plea – co accused - parity of sentence – 3 years and 6 months

Facts

Prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of stealing, under s.372(1) of the Criminal Code Act. The facts were that he, with several others, stole a chainsaw, the property of a company. His other co-accused was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months on a guilty plea.

Issue

Should the prisoner serve a custodial sentence?

Held

As stealing is a prevalent offence in Papua New Guinea, the Court’s sentence must reflect that. Considering also the principle of parity of sentencing, the prisoner is sentenced to 3 years and 6 months, the same term as his co-accused, who was earlier sentenced.

Cases cited

State v Spakman Sepi Komine (1998) N1813

State v Ojawe Tunmai (2000) N1988

State v Frank Suwari (2001) N2173

State v Vincent Malara (2002) N2188

Counsel:

P. Kaluwin, for the State

R. Yayabu, for the Prisoner

SENTENCE

3 September, 2008

1. DAVANI .J: On 2nd September, 2008, Johnson Maurani (‘prisoner’) pleaded guilty to the following facts;

- that he on 2nd May, 2005 at Wabo, Alotau in the Milne Bay Province, stole from one Matson Chris, a chainsaw, the property of Central Sawmill, contravening s.372(1)(10) of the Criminal Code Act (‘CCA’). This provision reads;

“372. Stealing

(1) Any person who steals anything capable of being stolen is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to this section, imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

…

(10) If the thing stolen is of the value of K1,000.00 or upwards, the offender is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.”

Background Facts

2. The prisoner was involved in the commission of this offence with several others. On 12th May, 2008, his co-accused, Rex Ray Daniel, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months, here in Alotau, by His Honour Gavara–Nanu. J. The other co-accused, Macky Deunai is still in custody.

3. The prisoner was originally apprehended by the police on 11th June, 2005. He was in custody during the period 11th June, 2006 to 17th July, 2007 when he escaped. He voluntarily surrendered to the police on 18th March, 2008 and has been in custody ever since.

Allocatus

4. On allocatus, the prisoner said he was sorry for what he did. He said sorry to the victim and also told the Court that he did not use any weapons when he committed the offence. He told the Court that this was his first time to appear in a Court of law and asked the Court for its mercy.

Mitigating Factors

5. The prisoner has shown remorse and has pleaded guilty to this offence, saving the Court a lot of time. There were no weapons or violence used when the offence was committed.

6. The prisoner also co-operated with the police by admitting the offence.

Aggravating Factors

7. Stealing is a very prevalent offence and so by its nature, is aggravating indeed. In this case, stealing was done in a group, i.e., there were 2 or 3 others who helped or assisted in committing this offence.

Analysis of evidence and the law

8. The offence of stealing is very prevalent in Papua New Guinea. Families, individuals, companies, in fact people from all walks of life, have to always look behind their backs, for fear of being the victims of crime, whatever it might be. Stealing, be it on the street or at home, at night or as in this case, on company premises, the victims of that crime are more often than not, behind locked doors and hoping and praying that they are not the next victims. Which is why, as will be appreciated, when the offenders are before the Court, the Courts must hand down sentences that will tell others or would be thieves, that they cannot do this. Again, which is why I believe my brother Gavara–Nanu. J handed down sentence of 3 years and 6 months to the prisoner’s co-accused, Rex Roy Daniel. I do not have His Honour’s published reasons, but I can safely assume that these were the factors His Honour took into account.

9. Because of the principle of parity of sentence, the sentence I hand down must be similar to the one handed down by His Honour Gavara–Nanu. J (see State v Spakman Sepi Komine (1998) N1813); State v Ojawe Tunmai (2000) N1988; The State v Frank Suwari (2001) N2173; cases where the Court considered the principle of parity of sentences and where co-accused are involved). Of course generally, this principle applies, unless exceptional circumstances are shown that would warrant the increase or decrease of sentence handed down for other co-accused. (see State v Vincent Malara (2002) N2188).

10. In view of the above, this Court sentences you to 3 years and 6 months in hard labour. I heard that you were in custody on remand for the period 11th June, 2005 to 17th July, 2007, a period of 2 years and 1 week, then from 18th March, 2008 to 3rd September, 2009, a period of 4 months and 2 weeks. The total period spent in custody on remand is 2 years, 4 months and 3 weeks. This is applied towards reduction of the head sentence.

11. The prisoner shall now serve the reduced term of 1 year and 2 weeks in hard labour.

12. I have heard that the State does not take issue with the prisoner, having escaped earlier, so I will not state a position, one way or the other.

_____________________________

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State

Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Prisoner