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

Police v Sola [1999] PGDC 18; DC64 (26 August 1999)

Unreported District Court Decisions

[1999] PNGDC 20 - POLICE V SIMON TAGI SOLA

[1999] PNGDC 20

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

NO 21 OF 1999

POLICE (Informant)

v

SIMON TAGI SOLA (Defendant)

Kimbe

S Lenalia PM

23 August 1999

26 August 1999

CRIMINAL LAW�Stealing, Plea, Sentence and Criminal Code� (Ch262) s372(1).

CRIMINAL LAW�Stealing, Sentencing range, Principles in dishonesty cases- Guided by- Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496 applied.

Cases referred to

Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496

The State v Albert Monja [1987] PNGLR 447

Legislation

Criminal Code� (Ch262) s372(1), Constitution s52

Representation:

Counsel/Representative:

Informant: Sergeant Sukena

Defendant: Accused in person

Lawyers/Representative:

Informant: Police GV Prosecution�Kimbe

Defendant: Accused in person

23 August 1999

S LENALIA PM:

N1>[1]����� The accused Simon Tagi Sola of Balabolo village, Hoskins, West New Britain Province pleaded guilty to one court of stealing two (2) Stihl chain saws each valuing K3,000.00 each the property of one Dick Zirope.

N1>[2]����� The offence took place along the Highway between Kimbe and Hoskins at Balabolo near the Mai villages on 8 December 1998. The charged is brought pursuant to s372(1) of the Criminal Code.

N1>[3]����� The case has been adjourn from time to time since the defendant is first appearance in March 1999 until the filing of the election certificate on 25 May this year. Further the accused elected to engage a lawyer to represent him. He infact engaged Latu Lawyers however, in July Latu Lawyers gave notice to the accused that if he did not pay up a certain sum of money, they would not represent him as the result when the accused appeared before me on 23 of this month, he indicated he no longer needed services of a lawyer and elected to conduct his own case.

N1>[4]����� The facts to which the defendant pleaded guilty are that on the date of this offence, the complainant Dick Zirope an SBLC contractor, the driver and a few other SBLC employees took off from Buluma base camp with intention to travel to Amio along the road to Gasmata for purposes of clearing blocks of land in preparation for reforestation. As the parties sat on the back of Mr Binara's vehicle with their equipment including the two Chain saws, they proceeded towards the Mai group of villages. At Balabolo village, the party observed a group of young men about seven of them lined up across the main road forming a barrier so that no vehicle could pass through. The driver stopped and after the driver asked the gang what they wanted, the accused and his mob demanded that they be picked up to be dropped off at Kapore station.

N1>[5]����� The seven boys got into the vehicle and the driver took off towards Kapore. As the vehicle approached a corner, the driver slowed down, the accused and his gang demanded the driver to stop. Quite, orderly and politely the driver stopped and when the seven young men alighted they grabbed the Chain saws and ran away into the bushes.

N1>[6]����� Despite persistent pleas by the complainant and the crew of the vehicle to the accused to return the two stolen items because the accused could be identified, such pleas fell on deaf ears as the accused and his gang made their way into the nearby bushes. I understand from the accused in allocations that the two chain saws were restituted some time later although restitution is not stated in the facts.

N1>[7]����� Our case involves a broad daylight stealing. The Police informant decided to charge you for stealing and this court accepted the facts as stated by the prosecution. In fact you should have been charged for robbery. In any event the offence you committed involves an amount of K6,000.00 for two Chain saws.

N1>[8]����� The Supreme court said in the case of Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496 that the larger the amount involved in a stealing or misappropriation case is the greater should be the punishment. The Principals state in that case further say that for an amount between K1.00 and K1,000.00 and K10,000.00 a goal term of up to two (2) years is appropriate. Your case falls under the second category in that case. The penalty prescribed under the section charged is three years imprisonment in hard labour.

N1>[9]����� This court has a duty to tell you that your attitude towards the complainant was and is unacceptable in any civilized society. You and your gang showed no respect to the complainant and the vehicle crew. You asked the court to have mercy on you. You must and should understand that mercy and love are reciprocal concepts of give and take or respect given in return for respect.

N1>[10]��� People who pass through that portion of the highway where your village is situated have the right to pass through without people like you interfering with their freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution (see s52 of PNG Constitution). What you did to the complainant is very serious. Not only in the sense that you hurt him, but you offended against the general feeling of the public which this court represents. To show the public that not only have you offended against Dick Zirope but also against the State. Your behaviour cannot be tolerated by the Courts and this Court has a duty to ensure that the general public interests are protected to the most.

N1>[11]��� In your favour, I consider the fact that you pleaded guilty. A guilty plea is genuine credit as was stated in The State v Albert Monja [1987] PNGLR 447. On aggravation, you have had a previous conviction for arm robbery in 1995 and you were sentenced to one year imprisonment in hard labour. Further your action to the complainant shows to the Court that you cannot respect people and their property more particularly the victims in your case. To steal something in broad daylight offends against human dignity which dignity the Courts and other law enforcement bodies seek to protect.

N1>[12]��� I consider that an imprisonment of two (2) years is appropriate for you in the circumstances of your case. The accused is therefore sentence to a term of two (2) years imprisonment in hard labour. The Court further suspends half of this sentence on condition that soon after release after serving the sentence of one (1) year, the accused shall enter into a recognition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 12 months.

N1>[13]��� Sentenced accordingly.