The State v Michael Kamban Mani (2002) N2246

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2002) N2246
• Date: 21 May 2002
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002

Full Title: The State v Michael Kamban Mani (2002) N2246

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 21 May 2002

1 CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE—Sentencing—Break enter and stealing—Sentencing guidelines suggested based on past sentencing practices—Sentences imposed in previous cases need to be considered—Sentences in subsequent cases need to be within the range of sentences being imposed for the kind of offence under consideration unless circumstances justifying a departure exist—Prevalence or its opposite is a relevant factor to determine whether or not to depart from past sentences—Criminal Code s398(a)(i) and s19.

2 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Break, enter and stealing from an hospital ward office—Item stolen a portable generator valued at K2,500 recovered—First time offender—Guilty plea and cooperation 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 imposed and part suspended on terms including community service orders—Criminal Code s398(a)(i) and s19

3 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 Aiton Ipai (1997) N1629, The State v Rocky Masa Kuno (1988) N673(S), The State v Robert Kawin (2001) N2167, The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007, Acting Public Prosecutor v Clement Maki and Tom Kasen (1981) SC205 and Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: You pleaded guilty to one charge of break, enter and stealing of a generator from a hospital ward office at the Yangoru Station on 8 September 2001. The charge against you was presented under s398 (a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

Upon reading the evidence against you, including you record of interview, I informed you in Court that the evidence supported your guilty plead. I therefore accepted your guilty plea and convicted you of the charge against you. I then heard from both yourself and your lawyer on sentence. I also heard from the State on that issue as well and I reserved a decision on sentence pending receipt of a pre–sentencing report. I requested such a report in view of you argument for a part suspended sentence. The requested report was received yesterday and I heard further submissions based on it from you and the State.

The Facts

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. I consider it important however that I must state the law on it because there seem to be a view held by some that this should not be done. The practice is well established. One of the first judgments on that point is The State v Sabarina Yakal [1988–89] PNGLR 129. I followed that judgment in The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020. In The State v Jack Oroko Tepol (1999) N1941 per Kirriwom J and Public Prosecutor v Sam Nimimo [1977] PNGLR 226, the Supreme Court followed that practice. Usually the deposition is read to determine whether or not to accept a guilty plea. A guilty plea can only be accepted on the basis of the evidence or facts disclosed in the deposition. It follows therefore, that the facts as disclosed in the depositions become relevant facts, which must be considered to determine an appropriate penalty in order to...