The State v Mathias Watt

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2014) N5654
• Date: 06 June 2014
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2014

Full : CR. 96 OF 2013; The State v Mathias Watt (2014) N5654

National Court: Kirriwom, J.

Judgment Delivered: 6 June 2014

CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Convicted of stealing as employee—Abuse and breach of position of trust—Prisoner married to sister of business owner—Prisoner’s wife held responsible management position in company’s operation—Prisoner took advantage of his marriage to become privy to secret safe combination numbers and stole office keys from his wife’s bilum to carry out theft—Prisoner had confidential information of the money in the safe through his wife—Lack of remorse—No restitution—Money stolen was spent on excessive drinking spree over a period of three days - Trial was unwarranted—Sentenced to four years.

Cases cited:

The State v Johnson Maurani (2008) N3560

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

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1. KIRRIWOM, J.: This accused was convicted after a trial on a charge of stealing under section 372 of the Criminal Code. He stole K11,300 belonging to Waiu Ltd, a nationally owned company belonging to his wife’s brother, Kenny Samuel. The accused got married to Rachael Samuel, who was the Depot Supervisor of the company’s Maprik Operations. She was involved in the administration of the company in its Bonz premises at Maprik and after marriage to Rachael Samuel, the accused took up employment in the Operations.

2. He and Rachael Samuel lived inside the company premises. In the early hours of the morning of 24th October, 2012 the prisoner sent Rachael to feed their pigs outside the fenced area of the company. While the wife was away he took the keys to the office and the safe and proceeded to the warehouse where he entered the office and opened the safe using the secret code he somehow learnt of it and took out K11,300 in the safe that was delivered only few days ago by one of Rachael’s brothers for the company’s operations in Maprik. All that money was in K100 note denomination.

3. From 6:00am that day after coming into possession of that money, the accused went on a drinking spree with friends, mostly fellow work mates from Waiu Ltd and police from Maprik. He not only bought drinks but threw away money to friends recklessly as if he had so much that giving some away did not hurt his pocket or wallet. People who saw him spending lavishly said that he was carrying around substantial cash in K100 notes.

4. Maprik did not have a bank or banking facilities at the time of this offence and the accused had no reasonable explanation as to how he came into possession of that money apart from accusing two politicians of paying him varying sums of money by way of bribes for election related favours he did for them during voting and counting in the 2012 National Elections. One of those he named is a current sitting member. I will be recommending to the Police Commissioner for this story to be investigated and if found to be true, the accused and those he implicates be appropriately charged with criminal offences. He also stated that the monies were from his NPF savings which he received every month in the sum of K6000 per month and his brother in Port Moresby was in-charge of that account. However, he produced no evidence to support his claim. In the end the court could not believe a word of what he was saying, jumping from one story to another, being the source of his sudden change of luck when only a day before he was forced to sell his mobile phone because he needed money badly for his drink and rejected his evidence as recent invention and fabrication.

5. For purposes of sentencing, the prisoner is liable to be punished under subsection (5)(f) or even subsections 7 and 10 which create different categories of stealing which carry a maximum penalty of seven (7) years. But it must be noted that since the recent amendment offences under section 372 are capable of attracting maximum determinate term of 50 years without remission and without parole and even mandatory life imprisonment. Section 372 as amended provides:

“372. Stealing.

(1) Any person who steals anything capable of being stolen is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to this section, imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

(1A) If the thing stolen is money exceeding K1 million and does not exceed K10 million an offender is liable to imprisonment for a term of 50 years without remission...