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

State v Dima [2007] PGNC 16; N3119 (8 February 2007)

N3119

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

C R No 397 OF 2000

STATE

v

ANTON DIMA

Kokopo: Lay J

2007: 7 & 8 February

CRIMINAL LAW- CRIMINAL CODE s.410 - Receiving stolen money-sum received K650 - pre trial custody of 2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days-pre trial custody sufficient penalty.

Facts

The offender knowingly received the proceeds of crime in cash being the sum of K650. After a little over a year in custody he was granted bail, defaulted and was re-arrested and spent a total of 2 years 9 months 2 weeks and 2 days in pre trial custody.

Held

The period of pre trial custody was sufficient penalty. Sentenced to the rising of the Court.

Cases Cited

Zimbin David v Yapu David [1988] PNGLR 178
The State v James Hilux Palu (2004) N2585
State v Phillip Laur (CR 384 OF 2002) (Lenalia J 30/9/2002)

1. LAY J.: The offender has been convicted on a plea of guilty of one count of receiving the sum of K650 - the proceeds of crime knowing it to have been so obtained.

2. On 5 December, 1999 in the night a substantial amount of money, said to be K110,260 was stolen by an armed hold-up from Papindo supermarket at Takubar. Between 5th and 22 December, 1999 the offender received K650 which was part of the proceeds of that robbery knowing it to be so.

3. On his allocutus the accused apologised for what he did in receiving the money. He said he was young and did not have a sense of responsibility at that time. He now realizes what he did was not good and asks the court for mercy because he is now a family man.

4. His counsel submitted that the offender was aged 24 or 26 at the time of the offence and is now aged about 32 years. He is now married with children aged two years and one year. He resides in Takubar village. He was educated to grade 10. After his arrest on 22 December, 1999 the offender was in custody until granted bail in 2001. He failed to observe the bail conditions by not attending call-overs. Bail was revoked and he was rearrested. He has thus far spent two years nine months two weeks and two days in pre-trial custody.

5. Counsel submitted in mitigation that the offender is a first-time offender, his plea of guilty has saved the cost of a trial, he has not committed other offences, the K650 was recovered and repaid to Papindo. In addition the offender co-operated with Police when he was arrested by pointing out where he had hidden the cash he received.

6. On sentence counsel submitted that the offenders co-accused in CR 384 of 2002 (State v Phillip Laur) was sentenced by Lenalia J on 30 September 2002 to a sentence of five years in hard labour, with one-year suspended on a good behaviour bond on a guilty plea to receiving the sum of K15,000.

7. The State cited Zimbin David v Yapu David [1988] PNGLR 178 at 182 which makes the point that the law regards receiving as a serious offence. In that case two grounds are advanced as the reason for that view, the first being that in the theft of property, other than money, without the receiver there would be no market for the stolen goods. The second reason being that the receiver stands less chance of being caught. It is acknowledged in that case that the first reason does not apply to the theft of money. A receiver of money does not encourage theft of money because the thief needs no assistance in getting rid of it.

8. In the case of The State v James Hilux Palu (2004) N2585 where the goods received were valued at K100 and the offender had spent 1 year 2 months in pre trial custody, Kandakasi J sentenced the accused to the rising of the Court.

9. Having regard to the amount received in this case, and the sentence imposed on his co-accused for receiving more than 15 times as much, it seems to me that the offence is at the low end of the scale and that the time spent in pre trial custody is an adequate sentence to demonstrate society’s disapproval of the offender’s behaviour. I therefore sentence the accused to the rising of the Court.

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Offender.