The State v Robert Konny (2012) N4691

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 29 May 2012
• Citation: (2012) N4691
• Docket Number: CR NO 215 of 2012
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2012

Full Title: CR NO 215 of 2012; The State v Robert Konny (2012) N4691

National Court: Makail, J

Judgment Delivered: 29 May 2012

CRIMINAL LAW: Plea - Sentence - Multiple offences - Official corruption - Permitting escape from lawful custody - Mitigating and aggravating factors considered - Non-custodial sentence with strict conditions appropriate - Criminal Code, Ch 262 - s19, s87(1)(a)(i) & s140(1).

Facts

The accused was indicted with two counts. First for official corruption and secondly, for permitting an escape from lawful custody under s87(1)(a)(i) and s140(1) of the Criminal Code, Ch 262 respectively. He received K700.00 from a third party and released a suspect who was arrested and detained at the police station cell for having in his possession large quantity of marijuana. He pleaded guilty to both charges, was convicted and sentenced.

Held:

1. For official corruption, the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years and a fine at the discretion of the Court and for permitting an escape from lawful custody, it is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years: s87(1)(a)(i) & s140(1) of the Criminal Code, Ch 262 respectively.

2. The offence of official corruption was created by Parliament to deter public officials from using their positions for personal gain or advantage because holding a position of power or authority may often than not be abused or misused.

3. The magnitude of the prisoner’s responsibility as a police officer rendered insignificant his early guilty plea, his plea as a first offender, his plea of co-operating with the police during the investigations and admission to committing the offences, including matters stated in the pre-sentence report such as the adverse effect a custodial sentence would have on his family welfare and his unblemished record and distinguished service as a police officer.

4. Two strong mitigating factors were that first, the prisoner went after the suspect, re-arrested and detained him. Secondly, he returned the money to the Police Station Commander.

5. The prisoner was sentenced to a term of 3 years imprisonment in hard labour for the offence of official corruption and 1 year imprisonment in hard labour for the offence of permitting an escape. As the two offences were committed in a single transaction, applying the single transaction rule, both sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

6. In addition, both sentences were wholly suspended and the prisoner was placed on good behaviour bond for 2 years and gave surety equivalent to...