The State v Peter Yawoma (2001) N2032

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2001) N2032
• Date: 19 January 2001
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2001

Full Title: The State v Peter Yawoma (2001) N2032

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 19 January 2001

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Practice and Procedure—Plea bargain—Guilty Plea to lesser charge—Possible rape charge reduced to unlawful carnal knowledge of girl under 16 years—Court bound to accept and act on charge presented—Use of depositions for relevant facts—No need to call for presentencing report because of principles on disparity of sentence

2 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Unlawful carnal knowledge of girl under 16 years—Facts disclose gang rape with injuries to the victim aged 13 years—Need to avoid disparity of sentence—Sentenced to 2 years less time spent in custody

3 CRIMINAL LAW—Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1991—Compensation considered inappropriate where the prisoner has no means to pay

4 The State v Sabarina Yakal (1988–89] PNGLR 129, The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, The State v Kevin Mariano (2000] PNGLR 240, Andrew Uramani v The State (1996] PNGLR 287, The State v Jason Dongoma (2000) N2038, The State v Jack Gola (1990] PNGLR 206 and The State v Sottie Apusa (1988–89] PNGLR 170 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: On 17 January 2001, the State presented an indictment against the prisoner charging him with one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under sixteen (16) years. That followed a plea bargain between the parties from the more serious charge of rape. The need to avoid disparity of sentence also dictated a presentation of the lesser charge because the prisoner's coaccused, a Luther Jack, was charged with a similar charge and was sentenced to two years.

The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge presented against him. Upon a reading of the depositions, which were admitted into evidence without any objection from the defence, I proceed to confirm the guilty plea and convicted the prisoner of the charge as I was satisfied there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty plea. A decision on sentence was reserved to today. This is the decision.

Facts

It is now a well established practice that a Court is entitled to use the depositions following a guilty plea to extract the relevant facts for the purposes of sentencing unless there are serious and valid objections against that. A relevant case on point and supporting that proposition is the case of The State v Sabarina Yakal (1988–89] PNGLR 129. In The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, I followed that practice and said this about the practice at pages 3–4 of the judgment:

"In practice the courts invariably read the depositions and use them following a guilty plea to determine appropriate sentences. Thus, there should be no restriction as to the use of the depositions to...