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

State v Guma [2017] PGNC 132; N6770 (18 May 2017)

N6770

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
CR NO, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 OF 2016

THE STATE

V

PETER GUMA, JUNIOR GARU GREG, & BUTSCO BER
Kimbe: Miviri AJ
2017 : 22^nd March, 4^th April 15^th 18^thMay

CRIMINAL LAW - Plea-Unlawful use of motor vehicle Section 383 Criminal Code-passenger on vehicle driven detained -vehicle abandoned kilometre-no weapons drunken driver driving off accompanied by co accused-immediate surrender to law-admission to offence-cumulative sentence-concurrent sentence-totality principle-section 7 & 8 Criminal Code Act.

CRIMINAL LAW - Plea-drunk- deprivation of liberty-passenger of motor vehicle still on vehicle- driver defendant drunk-two passengers jumped off moving vehicle injured- one passenger pregnant woman-vehicle stopped after alert by by-standers.

CRIMINAL LAW -Plea-three co accused-Indictment Unlawful use of motor vehicle- deprivation of liberty-two in court-one escaped at large-bench warrant for arrest

CRIMINAL LAW - declaration filed-Section 525 (1) (b) Criminal Code- armed robbery- three defendants-one at large-discharged from armed robbery.

Cases cited:

Acting Public Prosecutor v Haha [1981] PNGLR 205
Public Prosecutor v Done Hale (1998) SC 564
Public Prosecutor v. Kerua & Ors [1985] PNGLR 85.
State v Guba [2000] N2020
Setep v The State [2001] SC666
Ume v The State [2006] SC836
Waim v The State [1997] SC519

Counsel:

C. Sambua, for the State.

D. Kari, for the Defendant

DECISION ON SENTENCE

18^th May, 2017

1. MIVIRI, AJ: Peter Guma of Kup Kerowagi, Simbu Province, Junior Garu Greg of Balam Wewak, East Sepik Province, and Butsco Ber of Pori, Tari, Hela Province were charged jointly that they on the 1^st August 2016 at Morokea, Kimbe unlawfully used a motor vehicle a Hyundai truck registered number KAC 803 without the consent of the owner one Michael Rambe. This was count one on the indictment presented contrary to Section 383 of the Criminal Code.
   
2. Section 383 UNLAWFULLY USING MOTOR VEHICLES, ETC.
   

(1) In this section, “unlawfully uses” includes the unlawful possession by any person of any motor vehicle or aircraft–

(a) without the consent of the owner or of the person in lawful possession of it; and

(b) with intent to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession of it of the use and possession of it temporarily or permanently.

(2) A person who unlawfully uses a motor vehicle or aircraft without the consent of the owner or of the person in lawful possession of the vehicle or aircraft is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(3) This section applies without prejudice to any provision relating to the unlawful use of motor vehicles or aircraft of any other law, but an offender is not liable to be convicted under both this section and such a provision in respect of any one and the same unlawful use.

3. The second count on the indictment contrary to Section 355 of the Criminal Code was that; Peter Guma of Kup Kerowagi, Simbu Province, Junior Garu Greg of Balam Wewak, East Sepik Province, and Butsco Ber of Pori, Kawi Hela Province were charged jointly that they on the 1st August 2016 at Morokea, Kimbe unlawfully detained one Christine Rambe inside the Hyundai truck registered number KAC 803 against her will.
   
4. Section 355 DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY.

A person who unlawfully–

(a) confines or detains another in any place against his will; or

(b) deprives another of his personal liberty,

is guilty of a misdemeanour.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

5. Present in court from custody were Peter Guma and Butsco Ber. Junior Garu Greg had since escaped from the cells whist awaiting the matter. There was a bench warrant application made for his arrest by State counsel which the Defence did not oppose.
   
6. I granted the order as applied for a bench warrant to be issued for the arrest of Junior Garu Greg of Balam Wewak, East Sepik Province. That warrant is still outstanding even today.
   
7. State counsel also filed a declaration pursuant to Section 525(1) (b) (3) of the Criminal Code in respect of all defendants, on the robbery charge that they were facing. It was a decision taken following Section 531 “Joinder of charges”, and to an extent Section 532 of the Criminal Code as the State had elected to proceed on the same facts but on a charge lower than Section 386 of armed robbery.
   
8. I discharged each of the defendants named on the declaration Peter Guma and Butsco Ber. And Junior Garu Greg of the charge of armed robbery pursuant to the powers under that section.
   
9. Consequently, the sentencing was to reflect unlawful use of motor vehicle and not armed robbery.
   

Brief Facts on arraignment

10. On the 1^st August 2016 at about 6.30 pm Michael Rambe drove his Hyundai truck registered number KAC 803 to Morokea Shopping area outside Kimbe town. He stopped the vehicle leaving the engine idle and went into the shop with his wife Christine Rambe to do some shopping. Upon returning to the vehicle you Peter Guma, Butsco Ber, Junior Garu Greg and another person were alongside the vehicle. Butsco Ber you got into the driver’s seat driving the vehicle. As you did, the other three jumped on the back with Christine Rambe and Jessica Tony still on the vehicle. Jessica Tony on seeing that jumped off as the vehicle was moving. She was five months pregnant she was in pain and in shock when she jumped and fell off the moving vehicle. Christine Rambe was taken in the vehicle with you all defendants as you drove away. She jumped off when the vehicle slowed down she too was injured and had to be treated at the hospital for the injuries. You abandoned the vehicle and ran away.
    

Guilty plea

11. Peter Guma, and Butsco Ber, you both admitted the charge of unlawful use of motor vehicle you got on the vehicle when it was driven by Butsco Ber who did so without the consent of Michael Rambe. I read the deposition that was tendered and confirmed the guilty plea to unlawful use of motor vehicle under Section 383 of the Criminal Code against the both of you.
    
12. Junior Garu Greg was not present upon the presentation of the indictment and so a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. His matter is therefore outstanding until he is arrested pursuant to the bench warrant.
    
13. The deprivation of liberty arises as a result of the unlawful use of the motor vehicle and therefore will be treated under the one transaction rule for the purposes of sentencing. Both women were passengers in the said vehicle that was taken unlawfully from the owner and consequently for the purposes of sentencing the court will treat both offences as concurrent and not cumulative as they are part of the same transaction: Setep v The State [2001] PGSC 14; SC666; Waim v The State [1997] PGSC 2; SC519. There are two offences here to which both defendants have pleaded guilty. The law in the way these are sentenced is the case of Acting Public Prosecutor v. Haha [1981] PNGLR 205 and Public Prosecutor v. Kerua & Ors [1985] PNGLR 85 principles cited above. From these cases, it is apparent that three principles are involved when it comes to determining the issue presented. These are set out in Kerua’s case at page 90 in the following terms:
    

"The National Court has discretion whether a sentence should be concurrent or cumulative but that discretion should be exercised in accordance with well-known principles. The latest local case on those principles is Acting Public Prosecutor v Konis Haha [1981] PNGLR 205. We follow that case and the useful statement of the English law found in Thomas, Principles of Sentencing (2nd ed), at 53-61). The first principle is what Thomas calls "the one-transaction rule": where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction all sentences in respect of the offences should be concurrent. The Supreme Court in Tremellan v The Queen [1973] PNGLR 116 made the same point in different words (at 117): 'Although it is neither desirable nor possible to lay down any all-embracing rule as to when sentences for two or more convictions should be made concurrent, sentences should generally speaking be made concurrent where a congeries of offences are committed in the prosecution of a single purpose or the offences arise out of the same or closely related facts”.

14. The facts of Tremellan's case illustrate this rule. The counts were paired for stealing and for fraudulent and false accounting and the Supreme Court on appeal imposed concurrent sentences. Other examples are a series of sexual assaults or frauds on the same victim. There can be exceptions to this rule and the Court of Appeal in England has upheld sentences which appear to offend this rule because the court considered that the totality of the sentence was correct. It is more a rule of thumb or a guiding principle than a strict rule and it is subject to the totality principle which is explained further below at paragraph 16.
    
15. The second rule is that where the offences are so different in character, or in relation to different victims, cumulative sentences are normally applicable. Examples given by Thomas are burglary and violence to the householder, assault plus escaping from custody, and sexual assaults on different victims. Wari Mugining v The Queen [1975] PNGLR 352 affords a local example. Cumulative sentences were upheld for grievous bodily harm and assault with intent to commit rape. Konis Haha's case (supra) supplies another local example; cumulative sentences for robbery with violence and rape were imposed. This rule, like the first one, is flexible; it is a rule for guidance only and like the first rule is also subject to the totality rule.
    
16. The third rule, the totality rule or principle, is that when the sentencer has arrived at appropriate sentences and decided whether they should be concurrent or cumulative he must then look at the total sentence and see if it is just and appropriate. If it is not, he must vary one or more of the sentences to get a just total. The court must look at the total sentence and see if it is just and appropriate for the totality of the criminal behaviour."
    
17. The higher of the two sentences prescribed would be that of the unlawful use of the motor vehicle under section 383 which is 5 years IHL and the lower would be of 3 years in the case of unlawful deprivation of liberty. I will sentence both defendants for the offences but will make the sentences as concurrent based on the principles quoted that the offences here of the one transaction the unlawful use was part of the deprivation of liberty, Christine Rambe was on the Hyundai truck registered number KAC 803 which was the subject of the unlawful use and she was driven away still in the vehicle hence the one transaction.
    
18. Both defendants have been in custody for almost 10 months 1 week 4 days which will be deducted from the head sentence passed against both.
    
19. State prosecutor has urged that there be difference in the sentence that is passed upon each of you as Peter Guma has paid compensation in the sum of K1, 800 and that is not the same for you Butsco Ber. You have not paid any compensation. The probation report has Michael Rambe stating that he wants compensation from Butsco Ber yet it is clear that he does not have the means to settle any compensation ordered. This is not the same as the different offences here and as to how the court should treat in sentencing. This is more to do with mitigation or aggravation in one prisoner as opposed to the other. It is not necessarily the role of the prisoners in the offence so as to differentiate in the ultimate sentence that is passed on one from the other.
    
20. It makes no difference in the sentence that is passed as I do not differentiate one from the other in the roles in the unlawful use and the deprivation of liberty as both aided and abetted each other in the commission of the offences. The presence of one encouraged the other and so there is no difference in this respect between the defendants. Butsco Ber would not have driven the vehicle without the continued presence of Peter Guma and vice versa.
    
21. Butsco Ber was the driver of the vehicle, Peter Guma merely hoped on and they drove off, should there be a difference in the sentences that are passed on one from the other. I hold that there will be no difference in the sentence passed against each of the defendants. And reason are all are equally to blame and liable for the offences here.
    
22. “The five prisoners were jointly convicted on the same indictment in relation to the same incident. So they are each liable to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court, however, still has to exercise discretion in relation to each sentence. It may impose different sentences. Like all sentences this is matter of applying a range of relevant considerations. They include the circumstances in which the crime was committed; how each prisoner has conducted himself since the crime was committed; and the personal circumstances of each, eg whether he is a young offender, paid compensation etc. (See Secretary for Law v Kaibug Jimbun and Another [1976] PNGLR 288, Supreme Court, Frost CJ, Prentice DCJ, Williams J; SCR No 1 of 1984, Re Minimum Penalties Legislation [1984] PNGLR 314, Kidu CJ, Kapi DCJ, Bredmeyer J, Kaputin J, McDermott J; The State v Peter John Plesman and Others (1997) N1657, State v Kanupio [2005] PGNC 159; N2800 (25 February 2005)
    
23. Since the commission of the offence prisoner Peter Guma has paid compensation in the sum of K1800 whereas Prisoner Butsco Ber has not. Should they be differentiated in the sentence that they receive based on this fact?
    
24. I consider that this fact alone cannot differentiate the sentence that it is the total effect after considering all materials for and against and to arrive at a sentence considering that each defendant is an equal player in the outcome of the offence. And that fact of non-payment of compensation is one of the factors to be considered to come to the sentence that is to be passed against both defendants on it.
    

Personal Antecedents- Butsco Ber

25. Butsco Ber you are 26 years old from Pori, Koroba, Hela Province. You were educated to grade 6 back in Tari but could not go further because of tribal fighting. You were resident at Bialla working with wild cat in building bridges. You were an excavator operator there. You were on your break and drinking beer with one Cletus who got you to drive the vehicle and you did that. It was more of a spur of the moment than a pre-planned matter.
    
26. Your parent’s father Ben Keivi and mother Serah Keivi are both alive in Pori, Tari, Hela Province. You are the second born child out of five siblings. You worked as an excavator operator from 2013 to 2016 in Bialla. In your record of interview you made detailed admissions to the charges that have been laid against you. Your admissions are consistent with what the witnesses say about the offence.
    
27. You were drunk and you admit that you were not the owner of the vehicle. You explained that you were told to jump on by Cletus who is still at large up till now. And that the vehicle was taken about a kilometre and left without any major damage to it. You had spent seven 10 months 1 week 4 days in custody awaiting trial.
    
28. In your allocutus you said you were sorry for what you had done that beer made you to do what you did. That you apologised and asked for probation.
    

Personal Antecedents- Peter Guma

29. You Peter Guma were aged 32 years old from Gurumuk, Kerowagi in Simbu Province. You were married with a female child 6 years old and a son 2 years old who was a TB patient. You had two (2) hectare block at Dagi where you were involved in a village oil Palm where you sustained yourself.
    
30. You were survived by your father Guma Balowa. You had 2 brothers and 4 sisters. You were the 6^th born out of seven siblings. You were educated to grade 8 in 2002 at Ruango Primary school. Your mother died so you left school. You secured a block. You are a peace officer at Dagi Village court.
    
31. The offence took place on the 1^st August 2016 and the next day 2^nd August 2016 you were taken in and admitted the crime. Your record of interview contains very detailed admission of the offence. You were drunk and told to buy drinks and had gone to buy the drinks. When you returned you were told by Cletus to get on the vehicle.
    
32. The vehicle was driven for a kilometre from Morokea to Aling where you stopped and made off to escape. You are a self- employed person and a first offender. You apologised and were remorseful. Your plea was not of recent but since the time of the offence you admitted and submitted yourself to the law. Not only that but you have paid compensation on the 6^th April 2017 with a live pig valued at K700, garden food valued at K100, and K1000 in cash altogether a total of K1800. That is shown in your evidence in the probation report with photos of the cash and food given, and the pig. Michael Rambe the owner of the vehicle that was stolen has accepted the compensation from you.
    
33. In allocutus, you said the law forbid stealing but you were drunk. You gave your personal antecedents together with the fact of your livelihood. That you had two poultry and a piggery. You asked for Good behaviour bond. You stressed that your last born son was a TB patient and was a burden upon you. This is confirmed before me by the statement of Mrs. Ellen Peter Guma your wife stating that you both have three children and Thomas Guma who is 2 years old is now in TB treatment. This is further confirmed by a report from the Paediatric unit dated the 17^th November 2016 file reference 11-4-2-11. The subject is Thomas Guma male 2 years old with Pulmonary Tuberculosis (defaulter) signed by Doctor Longa medical officer, who states that, “Thomas is a 2 year old male child who was initially seen at Kimbe Hospital with recurrent chest infections in March 2016. He was commenced on TB treatment after a chest X-Ray was done in March. Soon after the commencement of treatment he was taken home to Kerowagi Shimbu Province. While at home treatment was not continued so child was without treatment for 4 months. They eventually returned to Kimbe and symptoms recurred so child was recommenced on TB treatment in October 2016. This is currently his month of treatment. Currently his symptoms have improved and he is feeding well and followed up at the children’s consultation clinic”, and your presence is needed there for him, including the fact that two oil palm blocks will need you for the harvest. And your wife asks for your release on probation.
    

Mitigation

34. You both pleaded guilty to the charge firstly of unlawful use of motor vehicle individually, then of deprivation of liberty. Your pleas of guilty in each case were genuine and remorseful. This was clear from the records of interviews where you both admitted outright to the police upon questioning. Therefore your guilty pleas are not of recent but made at the first given opportunity and has continued right to court. You should be given benefit of that in the sentence that is passed here. And I do that here in your cases individually and severally.
    
35. I take into account your allocutus and your request for good behaviour bond and your lawyers request for a probation report. A probation report has been prepared in your individual cases and presented before me on 15^th May 2017 submission on sentence made, and I have adjourned the matter to today Thursday 18 for sentence to be passed upon both of you.
    
36. In your case Peter Guma in addition to the matters on your family which I have set out above you have a very good family background in that you have a permanent 3 bedroom house on Block number 225 Morokea village oil Palm. That is where you have been since movement here from Gurumuk Kerowagi Simbu Province. Your father Balua Guma is alive your mother Ruth Balua is deceased since 2013. You are the eldest of four children.
    
37. You are married men with three children particulars of which I have set out in respect of the child with the TB. You are a grade 8 leaver from Ruango Primary School in 2005 and were a village court peace officer with Dagi Village Court. You have compensation particulars which I set out above. Your village court chairman Mr. Paulus Kamga said you are a good man and very active in your duties as a village peace officer. That you were very remorseful for the offence. And you have reconciled with Michael Rambe the owner of the vehicle from whom you and the others committed the crime against. There is no damage to the vehicle except that two women at the back of the vehicle had to jump off in haste and as a result sustained injuries. One was a five month old pregnant woman another was an elderly woman.
    
38. Your assessment is good from the Probation service who recommends you for probation. You are not a danger to the community and the offence was out of drunkenness and not led by you but that you were merely told to get on the vehicle which you did. Being a village court peace officer you have shown that indeed you are wrong and have gone to settle it with Michael Rambe the person you have wronged even whilst you are in custody that is how genuine you are to settling this matter which is in your favour in the assessment of an appropriate sentence in your case.
    
39. I take that in your favour in considering any sentence against you. It is evidence of your commitment to make good the wrong committed. You did not wait for the court. You took your own initiative and in your own way see out settlement even though you were in custody. That must be taken highly in your favour. It is evidence of taking responsibility for the wrong committed.
    
40. In your case Butsco Ber your residential address is at Buvussi Section 7 block 1339. It is not your block but you live there with one Moses Robert. Your family all are back in Pori Tari Southern Highlands Province. You came here to seek employment and were working as an excavator operator with the Wild cat company who were engaged in the building of bridges along the Bialla Kimbe road.
    
41. You are a single man with no address where you can return to as the person Moses Robert says that Buvussi Section 7 Block 1339 is not where you are located with him. This is an important aspect in your case as to be located outside the prison at the fixed location and address for any sentence outside to work and to work well. It would be not so if you are not at a set fixed location. It is worrying when the local village court magistrate Simon Taim at section 7 Buvussi Block 1359 confirms that he had never seen you living there. So if you were not living there where were you living prior to the commission of the offence?
42. The Probation officer reports that you are not a suitable candidate for probation as you do not have a steady home. You travel a lot from one place to the next and it would be very hard for the supervision of the probation order if made upon you. You are the subject of the probation order that makes you stationary at a particular location during the course of probation.
    
43. Your lawyer insists in his submission that you will be resident at section 7 Buvussi block 1359 when released on a non-custodial sentence should that be granted. I take his word as against the report furnished.
    
44. In the means assessment report you stated that you can pay up to K1000 but where would you source this money from to make the payment as you are unemployed realistically you do not have the means to make this payment from all the material that has been put before the court. You must realize that you will only return to Jail if you do not make good the conditions that are ordered upon you to follow. But it is an informed decision that you are taking to ensure compliance should probation be considered in your favour.
    

Aggravation

45. The vehicle was parked outside the JJS Mart at Morokea with the key in the ignition and engine running, Michael Rambe, Christine Rambe and others had gone into the shop to do shopping. Butsco Ber got into the driver’s seat and just drove it and the other three jumped on the back tray and drove off. It appeared to be a spur of the moment matter. But the way it was carried out in the public shopping area was clearly bad especially in view of the fact that the area was frequented by members of the public. And that anyone person could have been hurt if the vehicle was pursued and there was haste on the part of the defendants to get away quickly. Further that the defendant’s driving was drunk and affected by alcohol. It could have easily led to death or serious injuries either to the persons on the vehicle itself or those on the side of the road there. The vehicle was driven without its lights on from there to Aling where it was abandoned. The road is a public road that is used by others also, and may have been hurt in the process. Any sentence passed must deter this offence against yourselves and any other person with similar inclination.
    
46. The probation report detailed that you were part of a group of men from Dagi Settlement drinking beer hanging around the Morokea area of Town when Michael Rambe pulled in stopped his vehicle there in front of the trade store and went into the store leaving the key in the ignition. One of you said Michael had been asked for the use of his vehicle by you all, so Butsco Ber got in and drove the vehicle away with you all jumping on at the back tray.
    
47. There were two women passengers at the back of the vehicle who jumped off trying to escape the unlawful use of the motor vehicle and got injured in the process of trying to escape. One of the women was elderly and the other was 5 months pregnant at that time.
    
48. Health Extension officer Casper Tiga West New Britain provincial Health Authority has given a medical report on Motor vehicle victim Christine Rambe of CIS Lakiemata seen today generalized back pain, scratches to her left forearm, back of her shoulder and knees consistent with a vehicle accident. Medication is antibiotics and pain killers for full recovery. This report is dated the 4^th August 2016. There are no residual injuries as a result from the jump off the vehicle.
    
49. In the case of Jessica Tony again Casper Tiga Health Extension Officer has furnished a medical report dated the 4^th August 2016 wherein he states that, Jessica Tony was suffering from multiple abrasions to the right knee, shoulder and generalized body aches. Her 5 months pregnancy is ok at the moment. That she will fully recover.
    
50. Kevin Tirupia police Sergeant who attended the vehicle says there is no major damage to the vehicle. It was a Hyundai Truck registered number KAC 803 with a hard start not parked properly but started when pushed and he drove it to the police Station. The vehicle was returned to the owner without any damage.
    

Issue

51. Given the circumstances and facts here, what is the appropriate sentence in your case?
    
52. There is no doubt that whatever sentence is given will be concurrent as this is a one transaction crime so it means that if higher sentence is for unlawful use of motor vehicle then the deprivation of liberty will be built into it.
    
53. In State v Guba [2000] PGNC 78; N2020 Justice Kandakasi attempted to set out categories of this offence and a sentencing trend as follows: “There are four broad categories in my view and these are:
    

(a) The offence is committed under serious aggravating circumstances such as serious injuries to the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle itself or other properties and is being committed in the course of or in the furtherance of a serious crime such as armed robbery;

(b) The offence is committed under circumstances in which not all of the factors under (a) exist but only some of them exist. An example of that would be say the vehicle is being taken by force but without injuring the owner or its lawful driver, driven off and is recovered with minor damages to the vehicle or any other property;

(c) The offence is being committed in situations where say a single factor under (a) exist. An example of that would be a case in which say, the owner or legal driver leaves the vehicle unlocked and the offender gains entry and drives off and damages the vehicle;

(d) The offence does not fall under (a) (b) or (c) but is still an offence under s. 383. An example of that would be a case in which say an owner/employer authorizes his employee to use a vehicle for a specified purpose within a specified period but he simply exceeds the authorized purpose and time for the employee’s own purpose or interest without advancing his employers interest in any way.

54. In my view, an offence which falls under category (a) should attract sentences between 4 and 5 years. Then those falling under category (b) should attract sentences between 3 and 4 years while those under (c) and (d) should respectively attract sentence between 1 to 3 years and a number of months to 1 year. Of course, from what is suggested, the actual sentences in any one given case can be substantially or fractionally reduced depending on the particular facts of the case and mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, young first offender, no prior convictions and an expression of genuine remorse.
    
55. Given the factors above you are both first offenders aged 32 years Peter Guma, and 26 years Butsco Ber. You both have pleaded guilty to the charge both for the unlawful use of the motor vehicle and the deprivation of Liberty. The probation report with the means assessment report speaks very well of the both of you except for Butsco Ber where your residence out of the prison is at a tribesmen residence at section 7 Buvussi block 1359. Your lawyer submits that that is where you will be if out of prison.
    
56. I am satisfied that you both will comply with the orders that I make now in respect of appropriate sentences for you of the crime of Unlawful use of motor vehicle pursuant to section 383 of the Criminal Code Act, you Peter Guma of Kup Kerowagi, Simbu Province, and Butsco Ber of Pori, Tari, Hela Province are sentenced to 3 years IHL.
    
57. For the crime of deprivation of Liberty pursuant to section 355 of the Criminal Code you Peter Guma of Kup Kerowagi, Simbu Province, and Butsco Ber of Pori, Tari, Hela Province are sentenced to 1 year IHL.
    
58. I order that the both sentences are served concurrently as they arise from the one transaction. Therefore, you Peter Guma of Kup Kerowagi, Simbu Province, and Butsco Ber of Pori, Tari, Hela Province are sentenced to 3 years IHL.
    
59. I order that 10 months 2 weeks is deducted from that head sentence for the both of you Peter Guma of Kup Kerowagi, Simbu Province, and Butsco Ber of Pori, Tari, Hela Province.
    
60. The remaining 2 years 1 month 2 weeks IHL is suspended on a 2 years probation on the following conditions:
    
    1. You shall enter into a probation order for 2 years on the usual terms under the Probation Act.
       
    2. You Peter Guma of Kup Kerowagi, Simbu Province for the duration of your 2 years probation order, you shall be resident and remain at Morokea village oil Palm block number 225 and shall not move residency from there without leave of the National Court.
       
    3. You Butsco Ber of Pori, Tari, and Hela Province for the duration of your 2 years’ probation order you shall be resident and remain at Buvussi Section 7 Block 1339 and shall not move residency there without leave of the National Court.
       
    4. You shall within 48 hours report to the Probation Officer.
       
    5. You shall perform 3 hours of community work at a worksite to be approved by the Probation Office;
       
    6. You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour at times;
       
    7. You shall not take liquor or any form of intoxicating substance or drugs during the period of your probation;
       
    8. You shall attend church every weekend for service and worship whilst on probation;
       
    9. Within 2 weeks of your release on Probation you shall join your local church youth group and participate in all its activities during your probation period;
       
    10. You shall undergo counselling from your local pastor for a number of times as may be determined by the counsellor;
        
    11. Upon release within 6 months you Butsco Ber shall reconcile and compensate Michael Rambe as follows:
        
        • (a) Cash payment of K1,000
        • (b) One mature or adult pig valued at K700
        • (c) Garden food to the value of K100
          
    12. The reconciliation and compensation payment are to be attended and witnessed by the Probation Officer, Station Commander of Kimbe Police Station, the Arresting Officer,Buvussi village court magistrate Simon Taim and Village Court Officials,
        
    13. The occasion for the reconciliation and compensation payment is to be recorded and a report filed at the National Court Registry by the Probation Officer;
        
    14. The Probation Officer shall file a report on the responses and progress of the probationer every six months with the first report due on 1 November 2017 and at any other time or interval as the National Court may order upon application;
        
    15. In a breach of any of these Probation Orders, your Probation shall lapse and you shall be arrested to serve the whole term of your sentence.
        
    16. These orders shall be listed for mention on the call-over in 1^st Monday June, 2019.
        

Orders Accordingly.

__________________________________________________________________

Public Prosecutor : Lawyer for the State

Public Solicitor : Lawyer for the Defendant