The State v Jason Dongoma (Dongoia] (2000) N2038

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2000) N2038
• Date: 13 December 2000
• Year: 2000

Full Title: The State v Jason Dongoma (Dongoia] (2000) N2038

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 13 December 2000

1 Criminal Law—Practice and Procedure—Indictment presented on lessor charge following plea bargaining—Use of depositions for relevant facts—Statement in allocutus inconsistent with facts per depositions—matter raised with counsels—Not necessary to change plea of guilty.

2 Criminal Law—Practice and procedure—accomplice in commission of offence pleaded guilty to serious offence and sentence—Need to avoid appearance or apprehension of—disparity of sentence even in a lesser charge.

3 Criminal Law—Particular offence—Unlawful use of motor vehicle—Factors for consideration—Commission of offence in serious circumstance with no good mitigating factors maximum penalty may be appropriate—Criminal Code Act (Ch262) s383 and s19.

4 The State v Sabarina Yakal (1988–89] PNGLR 129, The State v Jack Gola (1990] PNGLR 206, The State v Joe Ivoro and Gemora Yavura (1980] PNGLR 1, Dinge Damane v The State (1991] PNGLR 244, Kuraba Yangesen of Meremanda v The State (1978] PNGLR 465, Launce Vetari v The State (1979) SC156, The State v George Maiyangu and Eric Alu (2000) CR1341 and CR1342 of 2000 (Unreported and Unnumbered decision delivered by Kandakasi J in Lae on 8 December 2000) and Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: The Defendant was charge with one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, a Toyota Hilux registered number PAD 026 contrary to s383 of the Criminal Code (Ch262) (hereinafter "the Code"). On 5 December 2000 the State presented the relevant indictment following a plea bargain from the more serious charge of armed robbery. The Defendant plead guilty to the charge, following which his allocutus was administer and the matter was adjourned to today for a possible decision on sentence after confirming the plea of guilty and convicting the Defendant of the charge upon reading the depositions.

The adjournment was also to enable the Probation Service to provide a presentencing report if they could by today. That followed the defendant arguing for a non–custodial sentence.

Facts

There is authority for the use of depositions to extract the relevant facts for sentencing purposes. See The State v Sabarina Yakal (1988–89] PNGLR 129. I will therefore, use the depositions to extract the facts in this case. The Defendant was the 6th member of a gang of 6 youths. The gang held up and stole a vehicle Toyota Hilux registration number PAD 026 belonging to the Watut Local Level Government at Wanyanda, Bulolo, Morobe Province. That happened around 9.00am on 17 February 2000, when the vehicle was being driven across a river by its driver with its occupants. The gang was armed with guns and bush knives which were used to threaten the driver of the vehicle and its occupants and force them out of the vehicle. The gang then took over the vehicle and drove off and subsequently had it capsized and damaged.

The robbery was planned and carried out. The plan was to get a vehicle and use it to rob a trade store. However, the second part of the plan was...