The State v David Mokmok (2018) N8006

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Koeget, J
• Judgment Date: 06 May 2018
• Citation: (2018) N8006
• Docket Number: CR No. 218 OF 2017
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2018
• Judgement Number: N8006

Full Title: CR No. 218 OF 2017; The State v David Mokmok (2018) N8006

National Court: Koeget, J

Judgment Delivered: 6 May 2018

N8006

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 218 OF 2017

THE STATE

V

DAVID MOKMOK

Tabubil: Koeget, J

2018: 06th May

CRIMINAL LAW- Indictable offence – stealing pursuant to Section 372 (1) (10) of the Criminal Code Act – guilty plea – sentence wholly suspended upon prisoner’s promise to enter into recognisance and promise to Keep Peace and be on Good Behaviour Bond for the suspended period.

FACT

Between 22nd and 27th March 2017, the accused worked at the OK Tedi Mill Flotation Site in Tabubil in the Western Province. He was employed as a rubber liner by Star HR Ltd, a company subcontracted to OK Tedi Mining Ltd.

On 27th March 2017, after completing the previous night shift at the mine flotation site, the accused went to the Mill bus stop to board the mine bus to travel to Tabubil.

The Mine security officers conducted a routine check and discovered a plastic bag containing shining concentrates of gold. He was reported to the Asset Protection Department where he admitted commission of the offence. He was reported to the police and charged with the offence.

Counsel:

Ms. M. Tamate, from the Public Prosecutor’s office, for the State.

Mr E. Sasingian, from the Public Solicitor’s office, for the accused.

Case Cited:

The State –v- Kala Mak (2017) N6739

The State –v- Kawipi (2014) N5590

The State –v- Paul (2015) N6132

06th May, 2018

1. KOEGET, J: INTRODUCTION: The accused is charged with one count of Stealing pursuant to Section 372(1) (10) of the Criminal Code Act Chapter262.

ISSUE

2. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge in court and record of interview with confessional statement contained admissions so he was convicted accordingly.

3. The issue for the court to determine is what is the appropriate sentence to imposed upon the prisoner.

LAW

4. “Section 372. Stealing.

(1) Any person who steals anything capable of being stolen is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: subject to this section, imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

(10) if the thing stolen is of the value of K1,000.00 or upwards, the offender is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.”

PERSONAL PARTICULARS

5. He is married with a child aged five years old. He attended Mt. Diamond High school and completed grade 12 in 2007.

EMPLOYMENT

6. He was employed by OK Tedi for two years as a rubber liner. He resigned and returned to live in the village with his wife and child as a subsistence gardener.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

7. The offence committed was against the employer. Such offence is prevalent in the country.

MITIGATING FACTORS

8. The prisoner is a first time offender. He pleaded guilty to the charge and saved valuable time of the Court.

9. The prisoner cooperated well with the police by making a confessional statement and in the record of interview he made admissions consistent with the Confessional Statement.

10. The prisoner received no benefits from commission of the offence because the items stolen were confiscated by the security guards at the crime scene.

SENTENCE

11. The commission of the offence was planned by the prisoner and it was committed at midnight.

12. The commercial value of goods stolen is K17,000.00 and the goods were recovered by the security guards at the company premises.

13. The cases cited by counsel suggest prisoners in each case stole item of substantial value and each sentenced to be imprisoned for three years. The sentences were ordered to be wholly suspended.

14. In the instant case the prisoner is sentenced to be imprisoned for three years in hard labour. The sentence is wholly suspended upon the prisoner entering into recognisance and promise to keep Peace and be on Good Behaviour for three years.

15. Should the prisoner breach this condition, he shall be brought to court to be dealt with for the suspended portion of the sentence.

ORDERS

(1) The prisoner is to enter into recognisance and promise to Keep Peace for 3 years. Should he breach the condition, he shall be brought to the National Court to be dealt with for the suspended sentence.

(2) The prisoner’s cash bail of K500.00 is to be refunded to him.

(3) The guarantor’s cash of K500.00 is to be refunded to him forthwith.

Accordingly ordered.

_______________________________________________________________

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State

Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused