The State v Johnson Bale (2004) N2626

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Sevua J
• Judgment Date: 23 June 2004
• Citation: (2004) N2626
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2004
• Judgement Number: N2626

Full Title: The State v Johnson Bale (2004) N2626

National Court: Sevua J

Judgment Delivered: 23 June 2004

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Stealing—Amount of money stolen substantial—Money not recovered—First offender—Mitigating circumstances—Custodial sentence—4 years imprisonment.

___________________________

N2626

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR 55 of 2001

THE STATE

v.

JOHNSON BALE

Kimbe: Sevua, J

2004: 17th & 23rd June

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Stealing – Amount of money stolen substantial – Money not recovered – First offender – Mitigating circumstances – Custodial sentence – 4 years imprisonment.

Counsels

F.Popeu

O.Oiveka

23rd June 2004

SEVUA, J: You were found guilty and convicted of stealing on 17th June 2004 and it is now my task to sentence you. Briefly, the Court found through circumstantial evidence that you stole the sum of K78, 074.03 from your previous employer, Pacific Industries Limited under the following circumstances.

On the 26th June 2000, you were directed to do the company’s banking at PNGBC in Kimbe. You had with you the sum of K78, 074.03 in both cash and cheques. When you left the company premises, you were being followed by a stolen Water Board vehicle which had earlier parked outside the company premises. At the Ela Motors junction in town, you turned into the street which the bank is situated; however you did not go to the bank. Instead, you drove to Section 21 and parked at the rear of a Tucker Box. The Water Board vehicle arrived and the occupants stole the money from you.

In the exercise of your constitutional rights you remained silent therefore did not give evidence, but you were previously interviewed by police in respect of this matter and you gave answers to questions that were asked. In the record of interview, Exhibit “N”and “N1” , you explained that you went to the Tucker Box to recover some drinks that were not sold and you wanted to replace them. However, prior to your arrival at that shop, one of your colleagues had already been to that shop to collect money from the shop. The drinks could have been taken by that person who was a salesman. However, you were not a salesman that time. You were employed as an EDP clerk and you have offered no explanation why as an EDP clerk you were doing the job of a salesman.

In any event, the Court found that there must have been a conspiracy between you and the thieves, although you have denied any involvement even up to the time you were convicted you still maintained your innocence. The Court had found that this whole episode was not a coincidence. You had in your possession a huge sum of money, and you should have banked it because you were sent specifically to bank that money. However, although you saw the Water Board vehicle following you, you did not stop at the bank or even drive to the Police Station if you suspected that you were being followed. But then the Court asked how the thieves knew that you were carrying a large sum of money and that you had gone to the Tucker Box at Section 21 and parked at the rear of that shop. Surely, they must have known and that s why the Court found that this was not a coincidence but an inside job.

These are some of the facts that enabled the Court to find you guilty of this offence.

I have listened to you during allocutus and as I said at that stage you still maintained that you did not steal the money and I told you that that was contemptuous of you to say that. You said you did not benefit from that money. You said you were employed at the wharf and asked for a good behaviour bond.

Your counsel has submitted that you are 30 years old from Raluana village, Kokopo, East New Britain Province. You are married with five children. Up to the time you were found guilty, you were employed by East West Shipping Agency in Kimbe and you are a member of the United Church in Kimbe. This is the first time you have been convicted of an offence, and the Court has been urged to consider this on sentence. You did your matriculation studies at UPNG in 1993, then worked for Graybridge until your resignation. You then worked at Pacific Industries Limited from 1998 to 2000 when you were terminated as a result of this offence.

...