The State v Paeyan Sikar and Leonard Gawi (2003) N2545
| Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
| Judge | Kandakasi J |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 2003 |
| Court | National Court |
| Citation | (2003) N2545 |
| Year | 2003 |
| Judgement Number | N2545 |
Full Title: The State v Paeyan Sikar and Leonard Gawi (2003) N2545
National Court: Kandakasi J
Judgment Delivered: 27 October 2003
1 CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE—Sentencing—Break enter and stealing—Sentencing guidelines—Consideration of sentences imposed in previous cases—Need for sentences in subsequent cases to be within the range of sentences being imposed for the kind of offence under consideration—Circumstances justifying a departure—Prevalence or its opposite relevant factor to determine whether to depart from past sentences—Criminal Code s398(a)(i) and s19.
2 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Break, enter and stealing from government property—Four outboard motors stolen having total valued of K25,808.00—Recovery of some missing parts—First time offender—Guilty plea and cooperation with authorities from the beginning—Prevalence of offence—Sentencing tariffs—Past sentences not deterring would be offenders—3 years sentence imposed—Criminal Code s398(a)(i) and s19
3 The State v Sabrina Yakal [1988–89] PNGLR 129, The State v James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, The State v Jack Oroko Tepol (1999) N1941, The State v Sam Nimino [1977] PNGLR 226, The State v Aiton Ipai (1997) N1629, The State v Rocky Masa Kuno (1988) N673(S), The State v Michael Kamban Mani (2002) N2246, The State v Zima Munduai (2000) N2036, The State v Marety Ame Gaidi (No 2) (2002) N2279, Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564, The State v Jamie Campbell Fereka (2003) N2359, The State v Robert Kawin (2001) N2167, The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007 referred to
Decision on Sentence
___________________________
N2545
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
CR NO. 1173 of 2003
THE STATE
-V-
PAEYAN SIKAR and LEONARD GAWI
WEWAK: KANDAKASI, J.
2003: 22nd and 27th October
Decision on Sentence
CRIMINAL LAW & PRACTICE – Sentencing – Break enter and stealing – Sentencing guidelines – Consideration of sentences imposed in previous cases –Need for sentences in subsequent cases to be within the range of sentences being imposed for the kind of offence under consideration - Circumstances justifying a departure– Prevalence or its opposite relevant factor to determine whether to depart from past sentences – Criminal Code ss 398 (a)(i) and 19.
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Break, enter and stealing from government property – Four outboard motors stolen having total valued of K25, 808.00 – Recovery of some missing parts - First time offender – Guilty plea and cooperation with authorities from the beginning - Prevalence of offence – Sentencing tariffs– Past sentences not deterring would be offenders – 3 years sentence imposed - Criminal Code ss.398(a)(i) and 19
Cases cited:
The State v. Sabrina Yakal [1988-89] PNGLR 129.
The State v. James Gurave Guba (19/12/00) N2020.
The State v. Jack Oroko Tepol (08/10/99) N194.
The State v. Sam Nimino [1977] PNGLR 226.
The State v. Aiton Ipai (26/09/97) N1629.
The State v. Rocky Masa Kuno (14/07/98) N673(S).
The State v. Michael Kamban Mani (21/05/02) N2246:
The State v. Zima Munduai (12/12/00) N2036
The State v. Marety Ame Gaidi No.2 (26/08/02) N2279.
Public Prosecutor v. Don Hale (1998) SC 564.
State v. Jamie Campbell Fereka (07/04/03) N2359.
The State v. Robert Kawin (24/12/01) N2167.
The State v. Abel Airi (20/11/00) N2007.
Counsel
Mr. M. Ruarri for the State
Ms. S. Maliaki for the Accused
27th October 2003
KANDAKASI J: You pleaded guilty to one charge of break, enter and stealing of four outboard motors from the Department of Agriculture and Livestock’s motor shed at Ambunti Station on 12th May 2002. You were charged under s. 398 (a) of the Criminal Code.
On being satisfied that there was sufficient evidence supporting your guilty pleas, I accepted it and convicted you of the charge against you. I then heard from you and your lawyer on sentence. I also heard from the State on that issue as well and I reserved a decision on sentence. This is now constitutes the decision of the Court on your sentence.
The Relevant Facts
I note there is no dispute in this case with regard to the practice of using the depositions to extract the relevant facts for the purposes of sentencing. This accords well with the law and practice on it as represented by the cases of The State v. Sabrina Yakal;
1 The State v. James Gurave Guba;(19/12/00) N2020.
(08/10/99) N1941.
In your case, the facts as they appear from the material in the deposition and the facts put to you during your arraignment are these. On Sunday 12th May 2002, you two men with another Donald Wapai planned and broke into the outboard motor and fuel shed of the Department of Agriculture and Livestock at Ambunti Station. You gained entry by forcing and breaking the lock to the door of the shed. Once inside, you stole and escaped with four outboard motors. Two of these were 40 hose power, one 30 hose power and the other a 25 hose power. The total estimated value of these motors is K25, 808.00. These motors were for assisting people in the community with agriculture extension programs.
The next day your break in, enter and stealing was discovered. Concerned members of the Community, together with police from Ambunti mounted a search for the stolen properties, in the process of which they received a tip off. That resulted in an identification of you as the offenders. Upon persistent questioning, you eventually led the police and the community to the stolen property from their various hiding sites. The motors were all recovered in good condition except for one missing gear box, which you had sold to another person, one helmet or cover, and a propeller.
Your community needs to be commended for the support it gave to the police. For without their support, your arrest might not have been possible. This demonstrates the community’s abhorrence of the offence you committed, as it does not assist them in any way. It was a very selfish act on your parts.
Maprik police arrested you on 12th June 2003. That means you have been in custody for 4 months and 2 weeks and 3 days to today.
Both of you are first time offenders, with no prior convictions. You are both single and have no formal employment. Paiyan, you are 18 years old while Leonard you are 19 years old. Your respective levels of education are grades 10 and grade 6. Both of you are of the Christian faith, with the Catholic and SDA Churches respectively.
In your address on sentence, you pleaded for mercy and a lenient sentence to enable you to go back home and settle this matter with the people you have wronged. There is a pre-sentence report supporting that plea, prepared purely on your information only. There has been no in put from your victims and your village or community leaders as to how they might be prepared to contribute to your punishment and rehabilitation. During the period of adjournment, I left open the opportunity for you to furnish such information. There is only a letter from the CIS here in Wewak speaking of the possibility of officers in Ambunti that might be able to supervise you. Unfortunately, there is no indication from the proposed supervisor as what he or she would be able to do.
Submissions and Considerations
In considering an appropriate sentence for you, your lawyer has asked me to consider your expression of remorse, your educational and family backgrounds. She also asked me to consider and take into account in your favour that, you freely pleaded guilty to the charge against you and that, you have fully cooperated with the authorities, including the police. That made police work easy and saved this Court’s time. She also asked this Court to note that both of you are first time offenders. Further, she submitted on...
To continue reading
Request your trial