The State v Oa Seseka (1990) N921

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (1990) N921
• Date: 19 October 1990
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1990

Full Title: The State v Oa Seseka (1990) N921

National Court: Amet J

Judgment Delivered: 19 October 1990

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Restitution—Extended family customary commitment in restitution as mitigation—Effect of as sanction

2 Wellington Belawa v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 496 referred to

The prisoner between 1 July 1988 and 4 December 1989 dishonestly applied to his own use the sum of K25,000, the property of New Guinea Australia Lines (NGAL) and Cathay Pacific Airways. He pleaded guilty to the charge.

Held:

(1) A sentence of imprisonment was warranted despite a strong plea in mitigation.

(2) Extended family customary commitment and obligation to make restitution is a mitigating factor.

(3) The extended family commitment imposes corresponding obligations upon the prisoner and is a form of sanction to be taken into account.

Principles of Sentencing in the case of Wellington Belawa v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 496, restated and applied.

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

This was a judgment on sentence for one count of misappropriation by the prisoner who pleaded guilty to the charge under S383A of the Criminal Code (Ch 262).

___________________________

Amet J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count "that he between 1 July 1988 and 4 December 1989 at Port Moresby, dishonestly applied to his own use the sum of Twenty Five Thousand Kina, the property of New Guinea Australia Lines (NGAL) and Cathay Pacific Airways".

He was employed by New Guinea Australia Line as an accounts clerk from 1985. In 1988 he assumed the role of Airline Accounting Clerk. One of his duties, was the collection of daily takings from the Sales Office for banking, the recording of same and actual banking of the cash and cheques.

The method of execution of this scheme of misappropriation quite simply was that over this period of some 17 months, the prisoner only banked the cheques and some of the cash and took some or all of the cash from time to time. The scheme was straight forward yet not easily detectable until a thorough reconciliation was done upon discovery that there was not sufficient funds in the bank to make payment.

This offence involved a very large sum of money, and I wish to restate some of the principles that the Supreme Court in the case of...