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

State v Kampa [2001] PGDC 42; DC442 (21 November 2001)

DC442

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 1291 OF 2001

State
Complainant

V

Bakly Kampa
Defendant

Goroka: Manue F
2001: 13th, 21st. November

MANUE F: This is a summary offence against the defendant, for having possession of a vehicle stereo on the 25th October 2001, reasonably suspected of being stolen contrary to Section 16 of the Summary Offences Act.

Was the defendant, as a Security Guard, in possession of the said goods?

FACTS

The defendant was a security guard at the front entrance of Steamships Hardware, West Goroka. His customers’ bags and some goods for safe keeping while customers shop in the Hardware.

Two unknown boys were involved in tempering with a car owned by Morobean Biscuit Company by stripping off the car stereo.

Having done that and were running out of time due to the owner of the vehicle coming towards the car, the two suspects then rush to where defendant was and dropped the car stereo without being wrapped, on the floor in front of the defendant. They told him to leave it there while they go into the Hardware Timber yard to do some shopping.

The defendant then quickly took the stereo and had it hidden in a box and placed it among the rubbish boxes. The item was not put away in the usual place where customers’ goods are kept for safe keeping. Soon after that, the Morobean Biscuit Company driver/owner approached the defendant and others in the Hardware enquiring about his stripped out stereo. None of the Steamships Hardware employees including the defendant responded in any way to the enquiries.

It was then that the only Prosecution witness, who was an off duty member of the Police Force, informed the owner of what had happened to the stereo. The witness gave an account of what the two unknown boys did and what the defendant did. The defendant was arrested with the assistance of duty Police and charged.

As a security guard, was the defendant in possession of properties suspected of being stolen?

The defendant does not deny that he did take the goods placed it in a small box and kept it among the other empty boxes. He does not deny that it was within his duty responsibilities to keep customers’ bags and goods including the said car stereo. He, however, said that he was not aware that the item was a stolen property.

Having knowledge of that, an item has been stolen is not an element in the said offence. All the prosecution requires is to show that the person possessing the item or goods is not the owner and that the person is holding the goods that are suspected of being stolen. Whether the goods were known to have been stolen is immaterial. The answer to the question posses is really a question of fact and would depend on under what circumstances the security guard had possession of the goods or items.

In the present case, the stereo was taken hurriedly to where the defendant was. It was further dropped on the floor in front of the defendant. He then quickly took it and put it in a box and placed it among the boxes of rubbish. I note also that the defendant did not gave an identify facts to the persons who left the stereo in order for them to re-claim the item. The two suspected boys simply rushed into the timber yard.

Sooner then expected the victim car owner entered the Hardware, where the defendant was. There he made inquiries of his missing stereo. Defendant and others in the Hardware did not respond or advise of the events that just took place in view of the stereo.

The manner in which the stereo was placed is the control of the defendant, should have raised some suspicion in his mind, as to why the rush and why just dropping the goods on the flour other than handing it to him. Why was it without any wrapping? There is also the question that ponders my mind, as to why he quickly placed it in a box and left it among the rubbish and empty boxes. Why did he not place it among other goods of other customers? The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the defendant had an intention of concealing it.

More suspicion is raised, as to why the defendant did not come forward and explain to the victim car owner when enquiries made. One could only say that the defendant had his own ulterior motives. I find in all the circumstances that, the goods defendant was having control of property suspected of being stolen. He is guilty as charged.