The State v Paulus Takesi [1997] PNGLR 507

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Sevua J
• Judgment Date: 11 June 1996
• Citation: [1997] PNGLR 507
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1997
• Judgement Number: N1468

Full Title: The State v Paulus Takesi [1997] PNGLR 507

National Court: Sevua J

Judgment Delivered: 11 June 1996

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1092 OF 1995

THE STATE

v

PAULUS TAKESI

Waigani

Sevua J

7 June 1996

11 June 1996

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Dishonesty Offences — Persons in position of trust — Lawyer.

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Forgery — Lawyer in State Solicitor's Office — Acting for client in Workers Compensation — Collected cheques & applied to own use — Plea of Guilty — Amount appropriated K7,000.00 — No restitution — Sentence of 2 years appropriate.

Held:

1. Where a lawyer enjoys a high position of trust, respect, high salary and other prerequisites, depending on the amount of money appropriated, a custodial sentence is appropriate because of the breach of trust situation.

2. In the circumstances, K7,000.00 is substantial therefore a custodial sentence is appropriate.

3. A sentence of 2 years imprisonment with hard labour on each count, to be served concurrently, is appropriate.

Counsel:

J Pambel for State

Accused in person

11 June 1996

SEVUA J: You have been convicted of two counts of false pretence contrary to s. 404 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code after entering pleas of guilty to both counts. False pretence is a crime which carries the maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

The facts of this case which you admitted are these. In January, 1994 you were employed as a lawyer in the State Solicitor's Office of the Department of Attorney General. One of your duties was to appear in Workers' Compensation Hearings on behalf of the State. You were approached by one Meko Iaia, who knew you as a lawyer and who asked you for assistance in respect of worker's compensation relating to the death of his brother. That request was made on his own behalf and on behalf of one Elos Kiki, the wife of the deceased. Following this request, you lodged a claim for compensation at the Worker's Compensation Office in Waigani. When the cheques for the claim were ready, you went to the Office of Workers' Compensation and represented to one Julie Koefa that you had authority from Meko Iaia and Elos Kiki to collect their cheques. You did not have any authority, and in fact, you lied to Julie Koefa. You then completed and signed certain documents and collected three cheques totalling K11,715.26 on 18 Jnuary, 1994.

On 19 January, 1994; you went to TST Supermarket at Tokarara with cheque No 424250 in the sum of K7,000.00 payable to Elos Kiki and cashed it by using a false identification card which had your photograph, but the name of Elos Kiki. You were assisted by two policemen who knew you as a lawyer. You purchased goods from TST Supermarket to the value of K1,000.00 and obtained the balance of K6,000.00 in cash which you applied to benefit yourself.

In your allocutus, you asked the Court for leniency on the following grounds:

1. You are married with a male child, 11 years old, who attends Waigani Community School and is in Grade 4;

2. From the beginning of investigation in this matter, you had co-operated very well with police investigators;

3. You were employed with the Department of Attorney General for about 3 years and were terminated over this matter in early 1994. Thereafter, you had experienced difficulties in getting a job, needless to mention the psychological stress associated with that;

4. Three and a half years with the Department was comparatively a short period to acquaint yourself with the pros and cons of the legal profession;

5. As a result of what you did, you are so regrettable of the shame you brought upon yourself, your relatives, friends and, most of all, the legal profession;

6. You urged the Court to give you an opportunity to make restitution over a period of time so you could seek assistance from family members since you have been unemployed for about 3 years now;

7. A penalty other than a custodial sentence would be appropriate in this case, as a custodial sentence would mean that all the many and long years that you had struggled to become a lawyer, would be a great loss to you personally;

8. You are a law abiding citizen, who attend church service as an Anglican every now and then, and you would not pose any danger to the community, if given another opportunity; and finally

9. You have asked the Court to consider the sentencing guidelines set out in the case of Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496.

I have set out almost all that you said in allocutus because I consider it significant to analyse them. Really, I think the only mitigating factors in your favour are that, you have pleaded guilty and, you are a first offender.

In my view, the offences which you committed are very serious because as a lawyer, you were in a very responsible position, a position of trust which carries a very high esteem in the eyes of the public. As a lawyer, the community expect you to act professionally and ethically at all times. As a lawyer, you were educated and trained to uphold the rule of law and this, the community expect your unfailing and unwavering commitment. Ordinary people in the villages and on the streets no doubt hold lawyers in high esteem by virtue of the fact that the villagers and those on the streets believe that lawyers can fight for justice for these simple people.

You were approached by a simple man who wanted to claim compensation for the death of his brother, a former employee of the University of Papua New Guinea. That man approached you on his own behalf and on behalf of the wife and four children of the deceased. Certainly, the fact that you were a lawyer would...