The State v Edward Giragu Koima (2010) N4115

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 24 August 2010
• Citation: (2010) N4115
• Docket Number: CR NO 732 OF 2008
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2010

Full Title: CR NO 732 OF 2008; The State v Edward Giragu Koima (2010) N4115

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 24 August 2010

CRIMINAL LAW—sentence—stealing—Criminal Code, s372(1) & s10—property valued at K130,992.00 stolen—offender and others dismantled and ransacked a house, stealing house and contents.

A 52-year-old man was convicted after a trial of one count of stealing a house and its contents valued at K130,992.00. The incident took place in a village when the owners of the house were absent. This is the judgment on sentence.

Held:

(1) The maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.

(2) A useful starting point is the middle of the available range: three and a half years imprisonment.

(3) A co-offender was dealt with previously, and after pleading guilty was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

(4) Applying the principle of parity in sentencing, this offender deserved a heavier sentence than the co-offender who pleaded guilty. The appropriate sentence was six years imprisonment, and none of the sentence was suspended.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Alice Kware & Addie Uvi CA 34-35/2006, 23.03.07; The State v A Juvenile, “KK”, CR 188/2009, 04.03.10

The State v Asi Taba, CR No 1443 of 2009, 22.07.10

The State v Danis Langu Jack, CR 183/2009, 21.12.09

The State v Douglas Boku CR 844/2009, 18.08.09

The State v Edward Giragu Koima (2010) N4037

The State v George Pelly, CR 672/2003, 04.03.10

The State v Martin Kairing Awi, CR 352/2008

The State v Philip Bira (2009) N3633

The State v Philip Bola Malagau & Michael Bio Tavulo, CR 678/1998, 17.02.09

The State v Tobby Alekun (2004) N2636

SENTENCE

This was a judgment on sentence for stealing.

1. CANNINGS J: The offender, Edward Giragu Koima, is before the court to be sentenced after being convicted after trial of one count of stealing contrary to Sections 372(1) and (10) of the Criminal Code. The offence was committed on Friday 30 March 2007 at Karisokra village in the upper Bundi area of Madang Province. A house occupied by a New Tribes Mission couple, Paul and Susan Boothby, was broken into and ransacked by a group of people, including the offender. The house was dismantled and taken away, along with personal property inside it. The Boothby family was overseas at the time. Further details of the circumstances in which the offence was committed are in the judgment on verdict (The State v Edward Giragu Koima (2010) N4037).

ANTECEDENTS

2. The offender has no prior convictions.

ALLOCUTUS

3. I administered the allocutus, ie the offender was given the opportunity to say what matters the court should take into account when deciding on punishment. He said (both in oral and written statements):

I respect the court’s decision to find me guilty of stealing but the court must understand that it was not my motive to steal. I denied the charge because I did not get the value of any of the victims’ property. There was a reason for the incident happening the way that it did. The dispute over the land had been going on for 12 years. It was like a balloon ready to explode at any time and it exploded. My son and I are being penalised for committing a crime but it was never our intention to commit a crime. We were forced to show our frustration and anger for the New Tribes Mission not vacating our land. I was not the instigator or the leader.

I too have suffered as a result of this incident. The police raided the village and burned down seven houses including mine and I have been left with nothing. Three of my children have had to leave school. My food gardens have been destroyed and we have had to leave the village. I am concerned about the welfare of my family. The court should also consider that some of the property was...