The State v Kerowa Kana (2003) N2376

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Jalina J
• Judgment Date: 16 August 2002
• Citation: (2003) N2376
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2003
• Judgement Number: N2376

Full Title: The State v Kerowa Kana (2003) N2376

National Court: Jalina J

Judgment Delivered: 16 August 2002

1 Criminal Law—Sentence—Escape by Remandee—Plea of guilty—Imprisonment to 5 years mandatory minimum penalty necessary as deterrent—Criminal Code s139.

___________________________

N2376

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR 1280 of 2002

THE STATE

-V-

KEROWA KANA

Mt. Hagen: Jalina J

14 and 16 August 2002

Criminal Law – Sentence – Escape by Remandee- Plea of guilty – Imprisonment to 5 years mandatory minimum penalty necessary as deterrent – Criminal Code s.139.

J. Waine for the State,

M. Kupul for the Prisoner.

16 August 2002

JALINA J: You have pleaded guilty to a charge that you escaped from lawful custody at Baisu Corrective Institution on 29th November 2000 while you were awaiting trial for willful murder. You escaped with 17 others during a mass break out. Evidence shows that you and 17 other remandees rushed at the lone prison officer when he opened the gate for 2 pastors to preach the word of God as is usually done on Wednesday each week. You were arrested by police near your village in the Baiyer River area more than a year later on 28th March, 2002.

This offence carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment pursuant to s.139 of the Criminal Code Act. The penalty used to be a discretionary penalty of up to 3 years but in view of the prevalence of escapes in prisons and police stations throughout the country, Parliament amended that provision in 1993 and not only increased the penalty from 3 years to 5 years but also removed the discretion from the Court in the length of time it can impose. In other words, previously the Court could impose a penalty of up to 3 years imprisonment or even impose a non-custodial sentence but now the Court does not have the discretion. It must impose 5 years. It can then decide whether to suspend the whole or part of that sentence depending on the circumstances of the case.

In your statement on the allocutus you said that you had been a remandee at Baisu for a long time and because your case took too long to be heard and you became sick and when you saw four gates open and the other remandees were escaping that time so you availed yourself of the opportunity and escaped to your village.

Your Lawyer, Ms. Kupul, apart from reference to your personal antecedents which I have noted, has submitted that whilst the court can impose the minimum mandatory period of 5 years, the sentence be suspended and that you be released on good behaviour bond. The basis for...