The State v Solomon Junt Warur
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judgment Date | 26 October 2018 |
Citation | (2018) N7545 |
Year | 2018 |
Court | National Court |
Judgement Number | N7545 |
Full : CR (FC) 185 OF 2018; The State v Solomon Junt Warur (2018) N7545
National Court: Berrigan, J
Judgment Delivered: 26 October 2018
N7545
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
CR (FC) 185 OF 2018
THE STATE
V
SOLOMON JUNT WARUR
Waigani: Berrigan, J
2018: 19 September, 17 & 26 October
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Misappropriation – Plea of guilty – No prior conviction – Serious offence – Position of trust – Impact on victim, public and public confidence – Plea of guilty to be taken into account on utilitarian grounds – Attributing plea of guilty with specific numerical or proportionate value - Section 383A(1)(a)2(d) of the Criminal Code.
Facts:
The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of misappropriation of K811,969.53, the property of the State, whilst an employee of Correctional Services, contrary to s. 383A(1)(a)(2)(d) of the Criminal Code (Ch. 262.) (the Criminal Code). The State submitted that the prisoner was entitled to a substantial discount on sentence on the basis that he had pleaded guilty at an early stage following committal to the National Court. The State further submitted that the court should articulate the sentence that would have been applied but for the guilty plea.
Held:
(1) It is well established in this jurisdiction that a guilty plea is ordinarily a matter to be taken into account in mitigation on sentence. It may be indicative of remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice on the part of the offender. It may also be taken into account on the separate utilitarian or objective ground that it has saved authorities and the court the time and expense of a trial and spared witnesses the inconvenience, and in some cases the distress, of testifying. In general terms, the earlier the plea the greater its weight and the more favourable it will be for the offender. In some cases a guilty plea when taken in combination with other relevant factors will be of little to no weight. Kalabus v The State [1988] PNLGR 193 applied. Signato v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 considered.
(2) Whilst a plea of guilty may be taken into account in mitigation, a sentence must never be made more severe because a convicted person has insisted on his or her rights under ss. 37(4) and 37(5) of the Constitution, including the right under s. 37(4)(a) to have the charge proved according to law. SCR No 1A of 1981; Re Motor Traffic Act [1982] PNGLR 122 considered.
(3) To single out a plea of guilty from the other factors to be taken into account on sentence and attribute it with a specific numerical or proportionate value is inconsistent with the proper approach to sentencing which requires the court to have regard to the aggregate effect of all the relevant considerations and then to determine the appropriate penalty for the particular offence. Rex Lialu v The State [1990] PNGRL 487; Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38; and Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC1017 applied. Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357 and Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 considered.
(4) Sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment appropriate in all the circumstances.
Cases Cited
Papua New Guinea Cases
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 663
SCR No 1A of 1981; Re Motor Traffic Act [1982] PNGLR 122
Kalabus v The State [1988] PNGLR 193
Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496
Rex Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487 at 489
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
The State v Daniel Mapiria, unreported, 7 September 2004
The State v Iori Veraga (2005) N2849
The State v Niso (No 2) (2005) N2930
The State v Aike (2006) N3455
Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC1017
The State v Tiensten (2014) N5563
The State v Lawrence Pukali (2014) N5695
The State v Seki (2014) N5847
The State v David Poholi (2016) N6214
The State v Christopher Hulape No 2 (2017) N7173
The State v Janet Oba (2016), unreported
The State v Paul Guli & Ors (2017) N6866
The State v Sakaponi (2017) PGNC 240 N6902
The State v Tracy Tiran (2018) N7336
Overseas Cases
R v Duncan [1983] 3 VR 208
R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328
Signato v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58
Counsel
Ms Wilma Malo with Mr Tom McPhee, for the State
Mr Edward Sasingian, for the Prisoner
DECISION ON SENTENCE
26th October, 2018
1. BERRIGAN J: INTRODUCTION: The prisoner, Solomon Junt Warur, pleaded guilty to one count of misappropriation, that he between 1 July 2010 and 12 March 2014 dishonestly applied to his own use and to the use of others K811,969.53, the property of the State, contrary to s. 383A(1)(a)(2)(d) of the Criminal Code (Ch. 262.) (the Criminal Code). The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
Facts
2. At the relevant time the prisoner was an officer with Correctional Services (CS) holding the rank of Sergeant. As a Communications Officer in its Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Section, he was responsible for the administration of telephone accounts and bills, supply of telicards for CS Headquarters, telephone line services and maintenance.
3. In 2010 the prisoner incorporated a company known as Merc-Tech Electronic Ltd (Merc-Tech) and opened a bank account with the Bank of South Pacific, Waigani Branch, in the name of the company, to which he was the sole signatory.
4. Between 1 July 2010 and 12 March 2014 the prisoner placed fictional orders on behalf of CS with the company for printer and copying equipment, toner and ink, batteries for radios and other radio equipment. On 66 occasions during the period the prisoner issued invoices to CS for amounts payable to Merc-Tech. In total a sum of K811,969.53 was paid to his company for which no goods or services were ever supplied to CS. Instead the prisoner dishonestly applied the funds in the company account for his own use or the use of others.
Sentencing Considerations
5. In Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496 the Supreme Court identified a number of factors that should be taken into account on sentence for an offence involving dishonesty, including:
a. the amount taken;
b. the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender;
c. the period over which the offence was perpetrated;
d. the impact of the offence on the public and public confidence;
e. the use to which the money was put;
f. the effect upon the victim;
g. whether any restitution has been made;
h. remorse;
i. the nature of the plea;
j. any prior record;
k. the effect on the offender; and
l. any matters of mitigation special to the accused such as ill health, young or old age, being placed under great strain, or perhaps a long delay in being brought to trial.
Comparable Cases
6. In addition the Supreme Court suggested that the following scale of sentences may provide a useful base, to be adjusted upwards or downwards according to the factors identified above, such that where the amount involved is between:
a. K1 and K1000, a gaol term should rarely be imposed;
b. K1000 and K10,000 a gaol term of up to two years is appropriate;
c. K10,000 and K40,000, two to three years’ imprisonment is appropriate; and
d. K40,000 and K150,000, three to five years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
7. Whilst the principles to be applied when determining sentence remain relevant and applicable, it is generally accepted that the ranges suggested in that case are now outdated because of the frequency and prevalence of misappropriation and related offences: see The State v Niso (No 2) (2005) N2930; The State v Tiensten (2014) N5563.
8. In this regard s. 383A of the Criminal Code was amended in 2013 to reflect community views that very high penalties should be imposed for misappropriation of amounts above K1 million: see the comments of Salika DCJ in The State v Guli (2017) N6866.
9. Moreover, guidelines like those in Belawa are just that, guidelines. They are not prescriptive: Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC1017.
10. Both counsel referred me to cases in support of their respective submissions. The defence cited The State v Niso (No 2) (2005) N2930 in which the prisoner was found guilty following trial of four counts relating to conspiracy, fraudulently uttering a false document and misappropriation of a sum of K500,000.00 belonging to her employer, the Bank of Papua New Guinea. The offences took place over a period of about 3 weeks. At the time she was the Senior Clerk and Supervisor in the General Ledgers Section. Gavara-Nanu J sentenced the prisoner to an effective term of 7 years’ 6 months’ imprisonment.
11. The State has helpfully referred me to a number of authorities, including the following which are most relevant:
a. The State v Tracy Tiran (2018) N7336, Miviri AJ, in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v Agnes Jimu & Charles Andrew Epei (2019) N8046
...N6055 The State v Kikimbe (2016) N6180 The State v Vagi (2017) N6994 The State v Yakop Ambasi (2018) N7597 The State v Solomon Junt Warur (2018) N7545 The State v Charles Andrew Epei (2019) N7845 Ure Hane v. The State [1984] PNGLR 105 Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496 Over......
-
The State v Wilma Pole
...(2016) N6564 State v Paul Guli & Ors (2017) N6866 State v Warai Kisua (2018) N7513 State v Dumo (2018) N7574 State v Solomon Junt Warur (2018) N7545 State v Mercy Lohia (2018) N7614 State v Lousie Paraka (2002) N2317 Liprin v The State (2001) SC673 State v Tongayu (2021) N8975 The State v E......
-
The State v Wanpis Apkas (2019) N7990
...This is sometimes referred to as the intuitive or instinctive synthesis approach: see the discussion in The State v Solomon Junt Warur (2018) N7545. Considerations on Sentence 13. I have taken the following matters into account when determining sentence. 14. According to the pre-sentence re......
-
Daniel Duale Wera v The State
...Ruddy Yekat v State [2000] PNGLR 225 Steven Ume & 2 Ors v The State (2006) SC836 State v Richard Namaliu (2020) N8506 The State v Warur (2018) N7545 William Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605 Overseas Cases R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 References Cited Section 299 of the Criminal Cod......
-
The State v Agnes Jimu & Charles Andrew Epei (2019) N8046
...N6055 The State v Kikimbe (2016) N6180 The State v Vagi (2017) N6994 The State v Yakop Ambasi (2018) N7597 The State v Solomon Junt Warur (2018) N7545 The State v Charles Andrew Epei (2019) N7845 Ure Hane v. The State [1984] PNGLR 105 Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496 Over......
-
The State v Wilma Pole
...(2016) N6564 State v Paul Guli & Ors (2017) N6866 State v Warai Kisua (2018) N7513 State v Dumo (2018) N7574 State v Solomon Junt Warur (2018) N7545 State v Mercy Lohia (2018) N7614 State v Lousie Paraka (2002) N2317 Liprin v The State (2001) SC673 State v Tongayu (2021) N8975 The State v E......
-
The State v Wanpis Apkas (2019) N7990
...This is sometimes referred to as the intuitive or instinctive synthesis approach: see the discussion in The State v Solomon Junt Warur (2018) N7545. Considerations on Sentence 13. I have taken the following matters into account when determining sentence. 14. According to the pre-sentence re......
-
Daniel Duale Wera v The State
...Ruddy Yekat v State [2000] PNGLR 225 Steven Ume & 2 Ors v The State (2006) SC836 State v Richard Namaliu (2020) N8506 The State v Warur (2018) N7545 William Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605 Overseas Cases R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 References Cited Section 299 of the Criminal Cod......