Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Kua [1997] PGNC 22; N1524 (11 March 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1524

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 964 OF 1996
THE STATE
v
KARU JUNIOR KUA

Waigani

Passingan AJ
5-6 March 1997
11 March 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - robbery - no evidence of identification - admission - accused picked up by friends after robbery - insufficient evidence of Knowledge - robbery or stolen vehicle.

Cases Cited:

No cases are cited in the judgement

Trial On Indictment

The accused is jointly charged with another (Peter Barns) with one Count of armed robbery (s.386 Criminal Code) and one Coununlawfully usiy using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner (s.383 Criminal Code). Haded not guilty to both Coth Counts. The facts are stin the judgement.

Counsel:

Mr Popeu foeu for the State

Mr J Ulge for the accused

11 1997

PASSINGAN AGAN AJ: The Accused pleaded not guilty to one Count of armed robbery aery and one Count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. These offencre committed oted on the 14th day of March, 1996.

The facts are not in dispute. On the 1ay of March, 1996 1996 at about 6.30 Am the victim drove her vehicle, a Mazda 929 Sedan, Reation No. BAL. 190 to the Hthe Hohola Shopping Centre. She was thereurchase some some bread for the family. As she drove in she saw your youths drinking liquor near the shop. She stopped and befhe coul could get out of the vehicle two men ran towarr.&#1ne was tall, slim slim and light-skin in Colour. This person was armth a sh a shotgunotgun. He demafor money and theKetheKey. The m handehanded him the the car Key plus K20.00. The second man horter and and had dark skin. the tan too Car e handehandehanded it over to the shorter man.

>

The victim was put into fear. A60; As soon as she h over over the Key she intoshop to request fest for assistance. The shopowner aser assisted her to call the Police and brought her to her house. Shenot see hoy people drov drove away in her vehicle. An0; And she was unabliden identify the two men then or if she saw them agai>

nly witness in thin the State Case was the Victim. The relevant portf her evir evidenvidence had been outlined above.

Fi in the State case the Reco Record of Interview (Exhibits “A1 & A2”) was tendered by consent. It contains denia the ry Cery Count. T60; The accusedts to bein being picked up by two friends on the road. But deniowledge of the ro e ro or that the vehicle he was in was stolen vehicle.

FINDINGS

On the evie evidence before the Court I find that the Stas proved beyond reasonable doubt that a robbery was committmmitted on the Victim by two persons on the 14th day of March, 1996.

ISSUES

The first issue to be determined is whether or not the accused is a party to the Crime of robbery. d that there is no evidencidence of identification of this accused by the victim.

The second issue is whether his connectith the vehicle the subject of the robbery makes him a party to the robbery. There isre is no de, that that the accused was picked up by friends who were driving the victims vehicle. Also ths no dispute that that the accused accompanied the others a as the Sogeri road until they were chased and he was appreapprehended by Police.

In my view the exact location where the accuot into the vehicle is rele relevant. If he got into the vehicle after the victim was held up he is a party to the robbery. Anwill also be guilty of t of the second Count.

I find that there is no evidence as to how many persons got into the ve at point. The The victim did not hae that. There is evidence thaleastleast two otwo others were at the front of the shop. Thereo evidence that they they joined the first two and drove away. gap in her evidence could ould have been cured by a wi on tene.

On thOn the evidence before the Court I find the accused not guilty of armed roed robbery pursuant to S. 386 of the Crimiode. Accordingly, the, the accused is acquitted of that charge.

The final issue is whether on the evidence the accused can be lawfully convicted of the second Count. The only evidencere the Cohe Court is from the accused himself. This is containehis Recordecord of Interview and sworn evidence. He was walkinghe road from from his house when his friends stopped acked p. H igot into the vehicle anle and agreed to go with them to Sogeri. He had noad no knowledge of the robbery or that it stolhicle. He f He found out later whilst at Sogeri and he requested to be dropped off atff at 14 Mile. Further, he thought D was driving his father’s vehicle. Daniel niel Father’s217;s vehicle was similar.

I find that this evidence standhallenged by any other evidence. The, of course another conr consideration. Is ; Is the accused teltheg the truth or not. But in tsence of any otherother evidence, this evidence creates doubts in my mind whether or not the accused knew it was stolen veh