The State v Richard Dusal Bix and Siprian Sipi Karo (2003) N2415

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2003) N2415
• Date: 06 June 2003
• Year: 2003

Full Title: The State v Richard Dusal Bix and Siprian Sipi Karo (2003) N2415

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 6 June 2003

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Stealing—Stealing from the bar of a motel sums of money totaling K2,700 with K800 recovered and returned to victim—Prisoners benefited from the proceeds of the offence—Generally the offence of stealing is prevalent—A deterrent sentence called for—Prisoners both first time offenders though not young—Prisoners both prepared to repay the balance of money stolen—Sentence of 3 years imposed to be suspended upon a full repayment of the balance of money stolen and on other terms including community service orders—s19 and s372(10) of the Criminal Code.

2 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 Timothy Tio (2002) N2265, The State v Robert Kawin (2001) N2167, Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271, Seo Ross v The State (1999) SC605, The State v Michael Kamipe (1996) N1471 and Allan Peter Utieng v The State (2000) SCR15 of 2000 (Unreported and unnumbered judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in Wewak on 23 November 2000) referred to

Decision on Sentence

___________________________

Kandakasi J: Both of you pleaded guilty to one charge of stealing a sum of K2,700.00 from the Windjammer Beach Motel on 8 February 2003 contrary to s372(10) of the Criminal Code.

The facts are straightforward. Between 1.00 and 2.00 am on 8 February 2003, you were amongst a group of men who were drinking beer at the Windjammer Beach Motel. You wanted the barmen to serve you free beer but he did not. So it seems, you Siprian Sipi Karo tried twice unsuccessfully to steal money out of the bar. Therefore, it seems you resolved to Richard Dusal Bix providing his shoulder as a form of improving your desire to reach the bar and steal money from there. That is exactly what you did resulting in Siprian Sipi Karo entering the bar and forcefully stealing from the barman sums of money totalling K2,700.00.

The proceeds of the theft were partly used to buy more beer for yourselves and your other friends. The rest were shared amongst you and your friends. Only K800.00 was recovered and returned to the victim.

There are other facts in the depositions that show clearly that, you use a piece of timber to threaten and indeed assault the barman. You also threatened to kill him by saying words to that effect. Whilst I do appreciate that you were charged and did plead to stealing simplicity, I must take into account the full circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. This approach is supported by authorities like that of The State v Sabarina Yakal [1988–89] PNGLR 129. I followed that authority in The State v James Gurave Guba (2000)...