The State v Steven Lasin (2007) N5052

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Cannings J
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2007
• Citation: (2007) N5052
• Docket Number: CR NO 1631 0F 2006
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2007
• Judgement Number: N5052

Full Title: CR NO 1631 0F 2006; The State v Steven Lasin (2007) N5052

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 13 July 2007

N5052

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 1631 0F 2006

THE STATE

V

STEVEN LASIN

Kimbe: Cannings J

2007: 17 July, 14, 17 August

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – Criminal Code, Subdivision VI.1.C (offences analogous to stealing) – Section 383A (misappropriation of property) – sentence on plea of guilty – manager of local-level government put in charge of electoral awareness program, misappropriated allowances of officers– two cheques totalling K10,888.00.

A man pleaded guilty to misappropriation. He was the manager of a local-level government put in charge of an electoral awareness program. He was given custody of two cheques worth K10,888.00 intended for 28 individual officers as their allowances for taking part in the program. He cashed the cheques and applied the proceeds to his own purposes. This is the judgment on sentence.

Held:

(1) The starting point range for sentencing for the amount misappropriated is four to six years imprisonment.

(2) Mitigating factors are: transactions committed over short period; co-operated with police; apology and repayment of some of the money; pleaded guilty; remorse; first-time offender.

(3) Aggravating factors are: large amount of money; held a position of trust; money not put to good use; large adverse effect on other persons; large adverse effect on public confidence in the provincial public service; did not give himself up; educated and intelligent man who should have known better.

(4) A sentence of four years was imposed. The pre-sentence period in custody was deducted and 30 months of the sentence was suspended.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890

The State v Augustine Seckry CR 376 of 2005

The State v Joyce Gulum CR 1620 of 2005

The State v Paul Taro CR 237 of 2006

The State v Rictor Naiab CR 387 of 2005

Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496

SENTENCE

This was a judgment on sentence for misappropriation.

Counsel

F Popeu, for the State

R Beli, for the offender

17th August, 2007

1. CANNINGS J: This is a decision on sentence for a man who pleaded guilty to one count of misappropriation arising from the following facts. In 2006 the offender was the Gasmata Local-level Government Manager. He was appointed co-ordinator by the Provincial Electoral Office of its awareness exercise regarding the new voting system. The Electoral Office appointed a number of other officers to assist the offender in conducting the exercise. He came to Kimbe in his capacity as co-ordinator of the exercise and went to the Provincial Electoral Office to pick up two cheques with a total value of K10,888.00. These cheques were intended to be allowances for the twenty-eight officers taking part in the exercise. Upon picking up the cheques he took them to BSP Kimbe and cashed them. He put the proceeds to his own use, from 8 to 12 July 2006. The officers realised that something was wrong when by the third week of July they had not received their allowances and reported the matter to police. The application by the offender of the money was dishonest. I entered a provisional plea of guilty and then, after reading the District Court depositions, confirmed the plea and convicted Steven Lasin of misappropriation.

ANTECEDENTS

2. The offender has no prior convictions.

ALLOCUTUS

3. The offender said:

I am very sorry for what I have done. I have never done this before. I was subject to outside influences. I have already extended my apology in an open letter to all the officers and to the Provincial Electoral Office. I have also apologised to the Electoral Steering Committee, the West New Britain Provincial Government, the Kandrian District Administrator, the Gasmata Local-level Government and all others concerned. I intend to repay all this money as soon as I am able to. I will never practice this again. I have already made some repayments of about K2,600.00. I ask the court to give me time to repay all the money. I am the only one working in my family. My parents died in the Bougainville Crisis. I am married with six children and my wife is not working. I have school fees and clothing for the children to pay for. I ask for leniency. I am willing to sacrifice my personal money to make good what I have done. I sincerely apologise again and I will never repeat this.

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

4. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890). He eventually co-operated with the police, after first lying to them about losing the money. He made admissions in his police interview. He has repaid K2,632.00.

PRE-SENTENCE REPORT

5. To help me make a decision on the appropriate sentence I considered a pre-sentence report prepared by the Kimbe office of the Community Corrections and Rehabilitation Service. A summary of the report follows:

STEVEN LASIN: male, aged 38 years.

Residence: Lives at Laleki, Kimbe, in a rented house – has been living there since April 2007 – prior to that he was living at Gasmata.

Family background: He is from Lontis village, Bougainville – third born in family of six – parents died during the Crisis.

Marital status: Married to a woman from Central Province, Margareth – both offender and his wife have previous marriages and children from previous marriages, a total of six – happily married.

Education: Grade 10, Hutjena High School, Bougainville, 1984 – Popondetta, Certificate in Agriculture, 1985-86 – Diploma in Tropical Agriculture, University of Vudal, 1995.

Employment: Came to WNBP to work in 1996 with the Kandrian-Gloucester Integrated Development Project – then joined the Division of Primary Industry and worked with them from 1987 –1993 at Gasmata – appointed acting LLG Manager of Gasmata in 2004 and worked in that capacity until 2006 – suspended in September 2006 to the present date due to commission of the offence – now under suspension with full pay.

Employer’s attitude: The president of Gasmata LLG, Stanis Julias, speaks highly of the offender who is regarded as an outstanding and resourceful officer – likewise the acting Kandrian District Administrator, Isaac Mesulam Ave, spoke highly of the offender and has accepted the open apology he has given to authorities and individuals concerned.

Health: Excellent.

Financial status: Depends on salary.

Plans: Continue to work in West New Britain – at some stage he would like to pursue his degree course at University of Vudal.

Offender’s family’s attitude: His wife is supportive – he has an uncle, Alois Romanu, working at Malama Hardware, who also speaks highly of him.

Community Record: Good – has established good public relations with locals through his job.

Assessment: Not considered a threat to anybody.

Recommendation: suitable for probation.

SUBMISSIONS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL

6. Mr Beli submitted a head sentence of five years would be appropriate all of which should be suspended in view of the apology made by the offender and his concerted effort to repay the money.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE

7. Mr Popeu agreed that the head sentence should be five years but only a portion of the sentence should be suspended. There was some serious aggravating factors especially the high degree of trust that was placed in him and the fact that the money misappropriated was intended for individual officers who were not in a position to carry those loses. The money was meant for individuals: it was their pay that he deprived them of. It is more serious than other misappropriation cases dealt with recently in the province where the money was misappropriated from large corporations.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

8. To determine the appropriate penalty I will adopt the following decision making process:

· step 1: what is the maximum penalty?

· step 2: what is a proper starting point?

· step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?

· step 4: what is the head sentence?

· step 5: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted?

· step 6: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY?

9. As the amount of money misappropriated is more than K2,000.00 the maximum penalty under Section 383A(2)(d) is ten years imprisonment.

STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT?

10. The Supreme Court set out some starting point ranges in Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496, depending on the amount of money misappropriated. Thus:

· K1.00 to K1,000.00 – a jail term should rarely be imposed;

· K1,000.00 to K10,000.00 – two years imprisonment;

· K10,000.00 to K40,000.00 – two to three years imprisonment;

· K40,000.00 to K150,000.00 – three to five years.

11. However, since that case, circumstances in...