The State v Timothy Tio (2002) N2265

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2002) N2265
• Date: 21 May 2002
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002

Full Title: The State v Timothy Tio (2002) N2265

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 21 May 2002

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Stealing by security guard—Item stolen a portable chain saw valued at K8,000 recovered from third party—Third party paid accused K1,000.00 which was used up by accused—First time offender—Guilty plea and co–operation with authorities from the beginning—Prevalence of offence considered—Sentencing tariffs suggested by counsel not supported by any authority rejected—Past sentences suggesting tariff considered—Past sentences not deterring would be offenders—Sentence of 5 years imposed to reflect need to deter as an important consideration in criminal law sentencing—Criminal Code s398(a)(i) and s19

2 The State v Sabarina Yakal [1988–89] PNGLR 129, The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, The State v Jack Oroko Tepol (1999) N1941, Public Prosecutor v Sam Nimimo [1977] PNGLR 226, The State v Robert Kawin (2001) N2167, Seo Ross v The State (1999) SC605, The State v Michael Kamipe (1996) N1471 and Allan Peter Utieng v The State (2000) SCR15 of 2000 (Unreported and unnumbered judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in Wewak on 23 November 2000) referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: You pleaded guilty to one charge of stealing a chain saw from Steamships Hardware here in Wewak on 24 April 2000, which conduct is prohibited by s372(1) and s372(10) of the Criminal Code. The evidence against you in the depositions supported your guilty plea. I therefore accepted your guilty plead and convicted you of that offence.

In your allocutus, you said sorry for committing the offence and said you made it easy for the Courts and the police by freely admitting to the commission of the offence. You also said this is the first offence you have committed. In the circumstances, you asked for a good behaviour bond or probation. I then heard submissions from your lawyer and that of the State and reserved a decision to a date before the end of this circuit. Subsequently, it was brought to my attention that you are serving a District Court sentence for break, enter and stealing. That sentence will be up by 18 July 2002.

The Facts

Based on authorities like that of The State v Sabarina Yakal [1988–89] PNGLR 129, which I followed in The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, and others as well as the judgment of my brother Kirriwom J in The State v Jack Oroko Tepol (1999) N1941 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor v Sam Nimimo [1977] PNGLR 226, I note there is no dispute in this case in relation to the practice of using the depositions to extract the relevant facts for the purposes of sentencing.

The facts as they appear from the material in the depositions and the facts put to you during your arraignment are these. On 24 April 2000, you were placed on duty between the hours of 10.00am and 4.00pm at the Steamships Hardware in here in Wewak. You were at that time, in the employ of MSS Security Services, which...