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

State v Barmen [1999] PGNC 86; N1943 (24 September 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1943

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 1369 OF 1998
THE STATE
-VS-
JAMES BARMEN

Waigani

Sakora J
22 September 1999
24 September 1999

Counsel

Mr Kaluwin & Mr Kupmai for the State

Mr Kari & Mr N’Dranou for the Defence

SENTENCE

24 September 1999

SAKORA J: You have pleaded guilty to the charge that on 15 August 1998 you stole from another person, Ernest Peter Stevenson, a pistol described as a Glock pistol serial number B 57819, the property of the said Ernest Peter Stevenson. After perusing the District Court depositions on the matter I was independently satisfied that you in fact committed the offence as charged, and as you admitted before me. I then formally returned a verdict of guilty and convicted you of the offence of stealing.

The agreed facts upon which you pleaded guilty can be summarised as follows. The State alleged that on 15 August 1998 at about 7:00 pm Ernest Peter Stevenson drove out of the yard of his home at Ela Beach in the National Capital District. A little distance and some minutes away from the house you and another person stopped the vehicle. The other person then began pulling Mr Stevenson’s wife who was near the vehicle, whereupon the husband got out and went to her assistance. It was the State’s contention that you then gained entry into the motor vehicle and removed from it a plastic bag containing a pistol without the consent of Mr Stevenson. The pistol was valued at approximately K8,000.00. You and your accomplice then left the scene immediately, and you yourself were later apprehended by the police that night.

The offence of stealing, that is taking the property of another without consent of the owner, is a very serious offence. The law itself considers interference with the right to ownership and actual physical ownership of property with serious concern. That is why the penalty the law prescribes for this type of stealing is 7 years imprisonment. Pursuant to s 372 (5) of the Criminal Code Act (Ch. 262) you stole the pistol from “a vehicle”, thereby attracting this maximum sentence under the law. And this is emphasised by the fact that the same maximum sentence is prescribed under s 372 (10) of the Act when the value of the thing stolen is K1,000.00 or more. This pistol was worth approximately K8,000.00.

I have had the benefit of hearing both yourself and your lawyer on this serious question of punishment for your offence. Learned counsel for the State noted briefly that the maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment is the same whether or not the thing stolen is a pistol or any item of lesser value. This is of course correct so long as the value of the item in question is K1,000.00 or above.

In your own statement (allocatus) to the Court you indicated that there had not been any plans to commit this offence, but rather that you had been in the company of this other person who had begun to pull the wife of the victim, resulting in the victim exiting from the vehicle to assist his wife. Thus, when the vehicle was momentarily unattended or unoccupied, you saw a plastic bag inside. It was only then that you decided to get that plastic bad, thinking it might contain some foodstuff. You say you are not a trouble-maker and that you have never been in conflict with the law before this incident, which fact was confirmed by the State.

I have also noted the fact that you did not hide or attempt to hide the pistol before and at the time of apprehension by the police later that night. Your antecedents indicate that you are 31 years old and come from Kunwagi village in the Western Highlands Province. At the time of this offence you were residing at Paga Hill here at the National Capital District. You are a widower and have no children. The last in a family of three brothers and two sisters, your parents are alive.

Formal education for you ended after Grade 2 at primary school. Despite this you were able to secure a permanent employment with a security firm, manning the VIP Restaurant in the city. Your lawyer urged upon the Court certain matters for consideration in your favour. This I have done so, and they are as follows:

· &##60;&<; Y60 havu plea pleaded guilty, thereby saving the State the time, expense and effort in bringing witnesses to Court and proving the case against you.

· ـ < Prior to this ent you had had been a law-abiding citizen who had been gainfully employed.

· ټ&##160;< < Tstol ecoct, the nigh>

>

· < &#160  #160; ـ Yoi admitted to theo the offence from the outset and o-ope fullh the police

In the result, considering and weighing up against each other those matters or factors operating for and against you, it is the judgment of this Court that you be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 13 months. You have been in custody awaiting trial for a total of one year one month and six days. As required by law, this period in custody is now deducted from the 13 months.

You, thus, having served your sentence whilst on remand, the Court orders that you have served the sentence of the Court and that you be released from custody forthwith.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Defence: Public Solicitor