Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Police v Longbut [1998] PGDC 14; DC37 (31 August 1998)

Unreported District Court Decisions

[1998] PNGDC 13 - POLICE V ROBINSON LONGBUT

[1998] PNGDC 13

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

GFC NO 49 OF 1998

POLICE (Informant)

v

ROBINSON LONGBUT (Defendant)

Kimbe

S Lenalia SM

28 August 1998

31 August 1998

CRIMINAL LAW - Stealing - Plea - Matters for consideration - Sentence - Criminal Code s372 (Ch262).

Representation:

Counsel/Representative:

Informant: Sergeant J. Turan

Defendant: O. Oiveka

Lawyers/Representatives:

Informant: Sergeant J. Turan

Defendant: The Public Solicitor

S LENALIA SM:

N1>[1]����� The prisoner pleaded guilty before me on Friday 28 August to a charge of stealing a high wheel lawn mower, the property of KBSA, Kimbe on 28 July 1998. This is contrary to s372(1) of the Criminal Code.

N1>[2]����� The facts to which the prisoner pleaded guilty to are very brief. It is alleged by the police that on Tuesday 28 July, 1998 at Kimbe Bay Shipping Agency (KBSA) at about 1.30 pm the defendant dishonestly took one high wheel lawn mower machine from the premises of the complainant loaded it into a company truck and drove the truck himself to where his house is. The defendant's house is situated at the back of Kimbe Primary School. He left the machine there and return to his work place. Apparently the defendant was then employed by the complainant for some six (6) years.

N1>[3]����� An informant informed the police about the theft and police applied for a Warrant to Search the defendant's premises. After the application was granted, police obtained a search warrant and proceeded to the accused resident and carried out a search during which the police retrieved the high wheel lawn mower machine. Upon arrest the defendant was arrested and brought to the station where he was interviewed. The defendant fully admitted to stealing the lawn mower.

N1>[4]����� In allocatus the defendant said, he is now very sorry for what he had done and that it is his first time in Court. He has expressed concern that, he now regrets committing this offence, as he is not now working and he has two (2) children to care for and a wife and wishes the court to take this into consideration. In mitigation the defence counsel submitted that, the court should take into account the following factors which I now in fact do consider:-

�� the defendant pleaded guilty,

�� has no previous convictions,

�� first offender, young, aged 27 and married with two (2) children,

�� the defendant co-operated well with the police.

N1>[5]����� I was urged by the defence that, a custodial sentence would not serve any good purpose and that a conviction and good behavior bond should be sufficient.

N1>[6]����� I was referred to page 503 of the Criminal Law and Practice of Papua New Guinea by Chalmers, Weisbrot and Andrew which basically discusses a number of stealing cases laid under s372(5) and s372(6) of the Code, which cases do not have any significant bearing on the facts of this case except maybe for the proposition that a substantial individual and general deterrent sentences was required where the accused was a mature educated person in a substantial position of trust who stole government funds pursuant to s372(6).

N1>[7]����� In addition to what I have mentioned on mitigation, the value of the stolen property is K787.95. I must also take into account the fact that the property was retrieved and I supposed still in good condition since the facts show that, the police searched the defendant's premises almost instantly and re-possessed the lawn mower.

N1>[8]����� The section with which the defendant has been charged carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding three (3) years (see s372(1)). As can be seen, it is quite serious and it reflects the legislative intent that people who tamper with property belonging to other persons dishonestly, must be punished. It teaches the concept of respect to other people's property. In your case, you stole the machine but it was lucky the police re-possessed it on behalf of the complainant. I understand from your lawyer, you have also been terminated from your job as a shop-assistant. In consideration of a sentence for you, I take into account that, you have shown remorse and all those factors I have earlier adverted to. I now sentence you in the following terms:-

N1>[9]����� You are convicted and discharged on the condition that you entering into your own recognizance with sureties of K100.00 to keep the peace and be of good behavior bond for one (1) year.

N1>[10]��� The surety shall be paid forthwith.

N1>[11]��� Your bail of K200.00 shall be refunded to you.

N1>[12]��� The police shall return the high wheel lawn mower to the company today (31/08/98).

N1>[13]��� Orders accordingly.