Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Citation: [1986] PNGLR 91
• Date: 02 April 1986
• Year: 1986

Full Title: Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91

Supreme Court: Kidu CJ, Bredmeyer J, Barnett J

Judgment Delivered: 2 April 1986

1 Criminal law—appeal against sentence by Public Prosecutor—s24 Supreme Court Act (Ch37)—principles governing appeal against sentence

2 Criminal law—sentence—forgery and uttering—appeal against trial judge's exercise of discretion in suspending part of a sentence—s19(6) Criminal Code (Ch262)

3 CRIMINAL LAW—Appeal against sentence—Appeal against leniency—Appeal against suspension of sentence—Principles applicable on appeal against sentence—Principles relative to suspension of sentence—Supreme Court Act (Ch37), s24—Criminal Code (Ch262), s19(6).

4 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentencing—Suspension of sentence—Principles applicable—Criminal Code (Ch262), s19(6).

5 CRIMINAL LAW—Appeal against sentence—Appeal against inadequacy—Forging and uttering—Head sentence of five years—Suspension of nine–tenths of sentence quashed—Criminal Code (Ch262), s19(6).

Held:

(1) The principles governing an appeal against sentence by the Public Prosecutor under s24 of the Supreme Court Act (Ch37) are correctly set out by Kearney J in William Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605 at 612–613 and in Acting Public Prosecutor v Konis Haha [1981] PNGLR 205 and in Cranssen v R (1936) 55 CLR 509 at 519–520. There is no conflict between Norris and Konis Haha.

(2) Suspension of part of a sentence under s19(6) of the Criminal Code (Ch262) is, or may be appropriate, in three broad categories. The categories are not exhaustive:

(i) Where suspension will promote the personal deterrence, reformation or rehabilitation of the offender.

(ii) Where suspension will promote the repayment or restitution of stolen money or goods.

(iii) Where imprisonment would cause an excessive degree of suffering to the particular offender, for example because of his bad physical or mental health.

(3) Accordingly, on conviction for charges of forging and uttering where the total amount involved, being K82,202.73, had been recovered and the total head sentence imposed was five years imprisonment, suspension of nine–tenths of the sentence on the grounds of alleged ill health should be quashed because on the findings the respondent would not suffer special or excessive hardships in prison on account of his condition of health.

Acting Public Prosecutor v Konis Haha [1981] PNGLR 205, Cranssen v R (1936) 55 CLR 509, Mauwe Antape v The State [1981] PNGLR 68, William Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605, Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412 and Public Prosecutor v Vangu'u Ame [1983] PNGLR 424 referred to

Appeal against sentence

This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor pursuant to the Supreme Court Act (Ch37), s24, against the exercise of the trial judge's discretion in suspending part of a head sentence.

___________________________

By the Court: William Bruce Tardrew was convicted on 18 December 1985 of four counts of forging cheques for K26,887.41, K22,092.00, K13,211.32 and K20,012.00 and four counts of uttering the same cheques. The total sum involved was K82,202.73. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years imprisonment for each count except the counts of forging and uttering the cheque for K13,211.32 for which counts he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. All sentences were made concurrent.

The trial judge directed that the prisoner serve six months of the sentence and the judge suspended the balance of four and a half years on the condition that the prisoner enter into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one...