The State v Roger Meckpi (2010) N4079

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kawi, J
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2010
• Citation: (2010) N4079
• Docket Number: CR No. 778 OF 2008
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2010
• Judgement Number: N4079

Full Title: CR No. 778 OF 2008; The State v Roger Meckpi (2010) N4079

National Court: Kawi, J

Judgment Delivered: 16 April 2010

N4079

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 778 OF 2008

THE STATE

V

ROGER MECKPI

Waigani: Kawi, J

2010: 11th and 12th March & 16th April

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence- wilful damage to property- extensive damage caused to the private vehicle of another person - substantial monetary loss totaling K10, 924.34- Wilful and malicious damage to private property- No form of apology offered to the victim- No form of restitution shown by the prisoner- No payment of some form of compensation – First time offender – Plea of guilty- No injuries caused to other persons- No other damage caused to other properties- Pre-Sentence Report and Means Assessment Report recommend for imposition of non - custodial sentence –Prescribed maximum sentence of two years to be reserved for the worst type case - Case not categorized as the worst type case or worst category case-Head sentence of ten (10) months imprisonment in hard labour imposed- Head sentence of 10 months to be fully suspended with strict conditions imposed- Criminal Code section 19 and 444(1).

Cases cited in Judgment

Aloises Peter Iboro Kovei –v the State. [2001] SC 676

Pukari-Flabu –v- Hambakon Sma [1965-1966] PNGLR 348

State –v- Kopol Hiol, unnumbered and unreported judgment dated 12th May 2008

The State –v- Martin Sahin Terea [2005] N2816

State-v- Steven Molu Minji, Simon Koso Kerenga, Didi Gelwak Sakol, John Minji and James Kauboi [2009] N3794.

The State –v- Betty Kaime, unreported and unnumbered judgment of Makail J dated 13th November 2008.

Dorren Liprin –v- The State [2001] SC 673

The State –v- Jan Tundubo & 4 Ors, unnumbered and unreported judgment of Makail J dated 10th December 2008

The State –v- Morgan Bae Cr 990 of 2009, unnumbered judgment of Kawi J dated 25th March 2010

Richard Liri- v The State (2007) SC 883

The Acting Public Prosecutor -v- Don Hale (1998) SC564

Cases Referred to in Judgment

Avia Aihi –v- the State (N0.3) [1982] PNGLR 96

Goli Golu –v- the State [1979] PNGLR 653

Counsel:

Ms. M. Zurenuoc and Ms B. Gore, for the State

Mr. M. Yawip, for the Accused

R U L I N G

16th April, 2010

1. KAWI, J: Roger Meckpi was indicted and he pleaded guilty to one count of wilfully and unlawfully damaging the glasses of a Toyota Camry, green in color and bearing the registration number BBD 975. The vehicle is owned by one Robert Tukondo, who is employed as an Internal Auditor with the National Judicial Staff Services (NJSS) and based in the Gordons office of the NJSS.

2. Upon arraignment the accused said “Yes. But, I had a reason to do what I did. I was very angry and frustrated over the delay in the progressing of my case in the Supreme Court.”

3. It would appear that the accused was raising the defence of provocation. Sensing this I asked defence counsel Mr. Yawip, if this were consistent with his instructions. He indicated to the Court that it was not and so I granted a short adjournment for the lawyer to confer and seek proper instructions from his client. When the Court resumed counsel indicated that the matters which the accused tried to raise were matters which were proper matters to be pleaded in mitigation.

4. Upon being satisfied I completed the arraignment and when the accused was asked as to whether he understood the charge and what he said to the charges he said “Yes, it is true.” I then entered a provisional plea of guilty, subject however to me reading the court depositions and being satisfied of the provisional plea of guilty. After reading the court depositions, I was quite satisfied that the accused had committed the offence of wilfully and unlawfully damaging the property of another person and so I confirmed and entered a proper guilty plea. I then proceeded to convict the accused of the offence under section 444(1) of the Criminal Code.

THE STATE ALLEGATIONS

5. The State alleges that on the 28th September 2008, the accused, Roger Meckpi went to the Gordons office of the NJSS. At the car park, the accused grabbed an iron bar and smashed all the glasses of a vehicle parked there, described as green Toyota Camry, registration no. BBD 975. The vehicle belonged to one Mr. Robert Tukondo, who is an Internal Auditor with the NJSS. The reason for the accused damaging this vehicle is that the accused was frustrated over his prolonged court case, which was then pending in the Supreme Court in a case between himself and other parties. The State therefore alleges that the actions of the accused amounted to wilfully and unlawfully damaging property belonging to another person, which is contrary to s.444(1) of the Criminal Code.

ALLOCUTUS

6. In allocutus you pleaded leniency and asked for a non custodial sentence. You asked me to take into account two important matters which you said should assist me to impose a non custodial sentence upon you. The matters you asked me to take into account are:

(a) You are a family man with thirteen (13) children, four of whom are working and have their own families to worry about. You indicated that nine (9) of the children are still in school and you are solely responsible for their upkeep and educational needs.

(b) You are a small businessman and your business has now suffered greatly because of the prolonged and inordinate delay in finalizing your Court case which was then pending in the Supreme Court. You advised the Court that the court case involved your businesses, which suffered greatly and there was a big drop in the profit margin of your business which was eventually closed down. It was this delay in finalizing your case that made you so frustrated and angry which led you to unlawfully damage Robert Tukondo’s vehicle.

7. The Word Wilfully as used in section 444(1) of the Criminal Code means intentionally or deliberately or maliciously or recklessly. This was made clear by the Pre Independence Supreme Court in the case of Pukari-Flabu –v- Hambakon Sma[1965-1966]PNGLR 348.

8. In this case I find that your action in breaking the glasses of the Toyota Camry was not accidental or negligent. Rather I find your actions to be deliberate and malicious. I say this because you armed yourself with an offensive weapon namely an iron bar and then executed your intention by going to the car park whereupon you destroyed another person’s vehicle. Your actions are malicious because you were frustrated and angry over the delay in processing your payments as well as finalizing your court case pending in the Supreme Court. Instead of allowing the case to go through the normal process, you decided to help yourself and you did this by engaging yourself in an unlawful and criminal conduct. You were of the view that by damaging someone else’s property you would force the Supreme Court to process your court case quickly. In fact these were criminal views that you entertained in your mind.

9. Such actions will not be tolerated nor condoned by this Court and so it must be punished with impunity, and the punishment that I will impose upon you must not only reflect the Courts general non-acceptance of this kind of behavior, but it must also deter you from engaging in a similar conduct in future. Furthermore the punishment that I will impose upon you should rehabilitate your attitude and your conduct so that you do not take the law into your own hands in future.

PRE- SENTENCE REPORT AND THE MEANS ASSESSMENT REPORT

10. A Pre-Sentence Report and Means Assessment Report was carried out on you by the Probation Services of the Justice Department. It was tendered into court and relied upon by your counsel in his address on sentence. I will refer to important aspects of this report later on in my judgment.

11. The Pre-Sentence Report covered your family background, your marital status, your educational background, your employment history, your current financial standing and your character references from some of your Tega Community members namely the Pastor of your local Lutheran Church, Pastor Michael Babiang of Tega village and the Tega village Court Magistrate Mr. Kaulga Nanga. The Report also stated that you intend to reconcile with the owner of the vehicle whom you identified as one Nelson Tengi and nobody else. Never at all did you mention reconciling with Robert Tukondo nor offering any form of apology to him. I therefore find that you have no intention to reconcile with the person whose vehicle you damaged, one Robert Tukondo. Nelson Tengi may be the owner of that vehicle, but at the time you damaged it, it was under the care, usage and custody of Robert Tukondo. Therefore in your reconciliation plans, you deliberately omitted Robert Tukondo who was the unfortunate victim of your criminal actions. Finally, your immediate family members expressed their willingness to help you to make restitution by proposing to make periodic re-payments of K 300.00 per month for 3 years towards the value of the damage

12. The Means Assessment report states that the continued delay in finalizing your case, has resulted in your business virtually breaking down. You are basically unemployed with no regular income, although the Report indicates that you have valuable assets like a plot of coffee trees, and a big plot of free hold lease land located between the town of Mt. Hagen and the Kagamuga airport.

13. There...