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

State v Pang [2021] PGDC 189; DC7045 (16 December 2021)

DC7045

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[ IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDCITION]

DC:NO:750—764 2021

BETWEEN:

State
[Informant]

AND

Jamie David Pang

[Defendant]

Boroko: G Unjo
2021: 16 December

CRIMINAL LAW – Firearms Act---Summary Offence ---- Sentence on four counts for in possession of firearm without license,2 counts of Possession of Firearms and five counts of Possession of Ammunition ---plead guilty to all the eleven charges on arraignment ----Sentencing is discretionary ----sentence principles set as a guide---aggravating & mitigating factors considered ----option for a fine or imprisonment is persuade by the facts of the crime—defendant not a first time offender under the Australian Courts –aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors --- maximum penalty of fine appropriate.—imprisonment reserve for worst cases and is not applicable.

Charged under Sections 7 ,27 (1) and 65A (a) of the Firearms Act. ---Summary Offence

Held: 1. The defendant is being convicted and fined by Australian Court on various offences committed with varies verdict of fines or custody sentence or being placed on Good Behavior Bond and or discharged.

2. The defendant having number of factory issued firearms in possession without license and ammunitions without dealer’s license does not support his intention of having a firearm for personal security.
3. The fine maximum fine of K10,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years is discretionary after weighing the mitigating and the aggravating factors.
4. The option for imprisonment must be supported by number of aggravating factors apart from being sentenced under the Australian Jurisdiction and imposing sentence on each count would amount to excessive and improper use of discretion.
5. The maximum fine escalates from the midpoint under each account is appropriate and is an equivalent measure giving consideration to aggravating factor of him being sentenced by the Australian Court for various Summary Offences committed under the Australian Jurisdiction.
6. As deterrence, maximum penalty of fine is appropriate in the circumstance.

Cases Cited
State –Vs--Charles Pokam [2021] DC 6047
State –vs-Bala Soal [2011] DC 2036
State v Iori Veraga (2005) N2921
State –vs- Sapak Tommy [2014] PGNC 103, NS647
State –v- Dua (2013) PNGNC 8; N4957
State –v- Sapik Tommy [2014] PGNC 103; N5647.
State –vs- Datnan NC 2014)
Richard Liri –Vs-State SCA NO/2006
State –v- Jasason Dungoal (13/12/00 N2038
John Aubuku –V- The State [1987] PNGLR 267
Belawa –V- The State 1988—89 [PNGLR] 496
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653;
Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92.

Reference
District Court Act.
Firearms Act

Counsel
1. Nutley of Fiocco & Nutley Lawyers for Defendant
2.Prosecution Sandra Holland for the State

RULING ON SENTENCE

Introduction:

1. Worship Garry Unjo. The defendant before this court is appearing on four counts of having in possession of Firearms whilst not the holder of a Firearm license, two counts of having in possession of pistol whilst not the holder of a pistol license and five counts of having in possession of live ammunitions without the dealer’s license. A total of eleven charges was laid against the accused. On the 19^th November 2021, he appeared briefly before the court, and was arraigned in his elected language, English, and understood the reasons for appearing before the court. On arraignment the accused pleaded guilty to all the charges. The parties were directed to make submission on penalty and is before the court for its determination on penalty.

Facts

2. The accused in 43 years of age from Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. He is a businessman in Papua New Guinea and is the owner of the Century Hotel located at Waigani, National Capital District. On collecting reliable information that, the defendant was part of the PNG based Drug Trafficking Organization that were responsible for the production, distribution and consumption of illicit drugs, namely, Methamphetamine in Papuan New Guinea, an application was made for an issuance of a Search Warrant and was granted to search on the Defendants Hotel Premises.
   
3. On the 16^th day of November 2021, in pursuit with Search Warrant, a joint operation of police and Customs personnel’s, conducted a Search on the premises of the Century Hotel, and confiscated 3x factory made pistols, namely 1x Sig Sauer pistol with no serial number,1x 40 Smith and Wesson pistol serial number WF 3937 and Ix Glock pistol serial number NDH 627 inside the room of the defendant.
   
4. The team also discovered 1x Beneli Shotgun,1x 12 Gauge Double Barrel shotgun,1x.22 rifle that were wrapped in a black guitar bag and a Mossberg Pistol Grip shotgun wrapped in a red cloth.
   
5. Apart from Firearms live ammunitions were discovered and seized by police and were described as.
   1. 22mm (15 rounds
   2. 9mm (115 rounds
   100. 12 gauges (16 rounds)
   4. 5.56 mm (187 rounds)
   5. 40mm (21 rounds)
   6. 229x .22 rounds
   7. 81 x 9mm rounds
   8. 125 x 12 gauge rounds
   9. 50 x 5.56 rounds
   10. 1x.40mm rounds
       
6. He had in total of 7 factory made Firearms and 910 ammunition without the license. Also found in his possession in the Hotel room, a mini Clandestine Laboratory with instruments and precursors used to produce drug substance known as Methamphetamine. It was being tested by experts and confirmed the same. He was then arrested and charged for being in possession of Firearms and ammunition without the license and dealers license.

Antecedent Report

7. A Presentence Report from the Probation Services states that, he is an Australian Citizen. He is 43 years of old and is married with two children age 13 and 9 years old and both attends International Schools in Port Morseby.The defendants is of a loving character to his family. He is generously assist a lot of Papua New Guineans and because of his community obligations he was awarded the Digicel man of honor. He suffers from bipolar a mental disorder that affects his personality and is undergoing treatment.
   

Allocotus

8. He is remorseful on what he had done. He did not keep the firearms for any other purposes, but aims to purchase from others to stop them from using it for unlawful purposes. He had not committed a crime against anyone, but against the law of this country. He has a mental disorder of which require further treatment in Australia and begs for leniency
   

Issue:

9. Whether or not the accused be imposed a maximum penalty prescribed under Sections 6, 65A (a) and 27 (1) (a) of the Firearms Act.
   

Law

10. Section 6. Firearms not to be owned except by licensed owner.

A person who owns a firearm in respect of which he is not the holder of a license under Part IV is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K10,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

PART VII. —PISTOLS AND HIGH-POWERED FIREARMS.

11. Section 27. Person not to own, etc., pistol or high-powered firearm without license.

(1)A person who owns or has in his possession—

(a)a pistol or a part of a pistol unless he is the holder of a pistol license in respect of that pistol; or

(b)a high-powered firearm or a part of a high-powered firearm unless he is the holder of a high-powered firearm license in respect of that high-powered firearm,

is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K20,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

(2) A person who carries—

(a)a pistol unless he is the holder of a pistol license in respect of that pistol; or

(b)a high-powered firearm unless he is the holder of a high-powered firearm license in respect of that high-powered firearm, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions (if any) specified in the license, is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K20,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

(3) The holder of a pistol license or a high-powered firearm license must carry the license with him at all times while he is carrying the pistol or high-powered firearm the subject of the license.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K5,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(4) It is a defense to a charge of an offence under this section if the defendant proves that the pistol or high-powered firearm in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed was purchased or hired by the defendant not more than seven days before the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, under a permit which was in force at the time when the pistol or high-powered firearm was purchased or hired, as the case may be.

12. Section 65A. Unauthorized possession of ammunition.

A person who is in possession of ammunition and who is not—

(a)the holder of an ammunition license; or

(b)the holder of a gun-dealer's license; or

(c)the holder of—

(i) a firearm license; or

(ii) a high-powered firearm license; or

(iii) a pistol license,

for a firearm, high-powered firearm or pistol, as the case may be, capable of discharging ammunition of the specific caliber or gauge of that which is in his possession,

is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K10,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Prosecutions Submission on Penalty

13. The prosecution submits that, on the 16^th November 2021, the police in execution of a Search Warrant on the Defendants premises confiscated the following Fire Arms described as.
    1. 1x Sig Sauer Pistol with no serial number
    2. 1x Wesson Pistol with serial number WF 3937
    100. 1x Glock Pistol serial number NDH 627
    4. 1x Beneli Shotgun
    5. 1x 12 Gauge Double Barrel Shotgun
       6. 1x .22 riffle
    7. 1x Mossberg Pistol Grip shotgun.
14. The police also found in the defendant’s possession lives ammunitions without the ammunition dealer license and they are described as:

a) 299 X.22 20 rounds

b) 81 x 9mm rounds

c) 25 x12 gauge rounds

d) 50 x 5.56 rounds

e) 1 x .40mm rounds

15. After the defendant’s admittance of having in possession firearms without license and ammunitions without dealer’s license, the defendant was arrested and charged with 4 counts of having in possession of unlicensed firearms,2 counts of having is possession of pistol without license and 5 counts of ammunition without the dealer’s license.
16. The accused has previous convictions in Australia on various criminal offences and is the same person before this court. He had served sentence in some of them, whilst on others he was placed on good behavior bond and got discharged in others. There are number of firearms in his possession are not homemade, but factory made and had in of ammunitions without the dealer’s license.
17. The defendant contends that he had no intention of using these firearms for his own use, but having not reported to the police draws the conclusion that, he kept the firearms possibly for other purposes and his conduct is highly questionable.
18. The firearms and ammunition trade in this country is prevalent and large number of people have firearms and ammunitions without license and people are using them to kill each other in tribal wars fares and involve in other crimes.
19. The defendant not only had firearms and ammunitions in his possession, but also found to be brewing a drug substance called Methamphetamine.
20. The defendant is a foreigner and has no respect for the laws of this country and the defendant has committed the serious offence and be imposed a maxim fine on each counts.

The defendant’s submission on penalty

21. The defendant through his counsel Nutley submits that, the accused had admitted to all the charges on arraignment. There is evidence that the defendant is the current license holder of the following weapons:

I) A .357 Colt Caliber pistol Lc.No.C101922 that is due to expire on the April 2022 and

2. A.38 Special Caliber pistol license No.C101922 that is due to expire on the 21^st April 22.

22. The evidence further shows that the defendant in the past has also been the holder of the following license of Firearms
    i) Firearms license No.LC 101922 for a 9mm Glock Pistol

ii) Firearm license No C 111173 for a 9mm Glock Pistol

iii) Firearm No. License No.C.111174 for a 9mm Gloak pistol

23. These Clock license expired on the 25^th November 2020.The defendant then paid to renew the license on 22^nd November 2021.The license to these firearms to be expired at their relevant time, but admits that at the material time he had no license to these firearms.
24. The defendant had forgotten to renew his licenses rather than a situation where he had gone out to get certain ammunitions for which he was not licensed, and had no right to possess it. This can be distinguished from the situation where the defendant had no license to it.
25. The defendant is the first time offender under this Jurisdiction of this country and the defendant plead guilty to all the charges and corporate with the police. He is diagnosed as a sick person with bipolar disorder and needs treatment. He is a man of good reputation and heavily involved in helping others. There is no evidence of the defendant used the ammunition to commit other crimes.
    26. The defendant had expressed remorse and apologies to the court and his custodian sentence would affect his young children family.
    27. The court to consider the mitigating factors that outweigh the aggravating factors and look into the gravity of the circumstance under which the offence was committed when deciding sentence.

SENTENCING TREND

28. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that their sentencing is done within the bench mark and guidelines set by competent jurisdictions, giving paramount consideration on the mitigating and aggravating factors put before the court. The factors in the particular circumstance that draws or influences the minds of court to arrive at the conclusion, is a discretionary one and there is no mathematical formula to arrive at the same result in the sentencing. It all depends on the circumstance of the case before the court. The precedence of this and other court is a guide to adopt in exercising the discretion, within perimeters that is reasonable in the circumstance. It must be properly balanced and weigh out to come up with a reasonable sentence with the appliance of appropriate principle of rationalism.
    29. There are number of cases in the jurisdiction of the National Court as guiding principle in determining on the sentence, but not many judgements written on this specific offence by the District Courts for reasons of not publishing judgments, except in the couple judgements, State –Vs--Charles Pokam [2021] DC 6047 and State –vs-Bala Soal [2011] DC 2036 is more relevant to the percent case. In the former, the defendant was a police officer who was charged under 51 (1) of the Firearms Act. He failed to safe keep the police issued firearm and got robbed of the firearm. The verdict was a K2000.00 fine. In the latter, the defendant was charged under Section 65A (a) of the Firearms Act and he was sentenced to six months’ custody sentence. I also find relief in other cases as guidance as in State v Iori Veraga (2005) N2921 & State –vs-Dua NC 8 4957 and State –vs- Sapak Tommy [2014] PGNC 103, NS647 in this determination.
        
30. In the case before me, I chose to adopt the sentencing principle applied by His Honour Justice Cannings in the case of State –v- Dua (2013) PNGNC 8; N4957 and the case of State –v- Sapik Tommy [2014] PGNC 103; N5647. In those cases, the the following decision making process was used:
    • step 1: what is the maximum penalty?
    • step 2: what is a proper starting point?
    • step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?
    • step 4: what is the head sentence?
      

Step 1: what is the maximum penalty?

31. The prescribed maximum penalty under the Firearms Act are as follows;
    1. Breach of Section 6

A person who owns a firearm in respect of which he is not holder of a licence under Part 1V is guilty of an offence.

Before Amendment:

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K1,500.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months

After amendments

A fine not exceeding K10,000.00 or imprisonment for a terms not exceeding Five Years

2. Breach of Section 27 (1) (a) Person not to own etc. pistol or high-powered firearm without licence.
   • (1) A person who owns the person who owns or has in his possession,
     • (a) A pistol or part of a pistol unless he is the holder of a pistol licence in respect of that pistol or
     • (b) A high-powered firearm or a part of a high-powered firearm unless he is the holder of a high-powered firearm licence in respect of that high-powered firearm

Is guilty of an offence.

Before Amendments

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K1,500.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding fours months

After Amendment:

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K20,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding ten years.

3. Breach of Section 65A(a)-Unauthorized Possession of Ammunition.

A person who is in possession of ammunition and who is not

(a) The holder of an ammunition licence; or

(b) the holder of a gun-dealers licence: or

( c) The holder of

(i) firearms license: or’

(ii) a high-powered firearm licences or

(iii) a pistol licence

is guilty of an offence.

Before Amendments

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding 12 months

After Amendments

A fine not exceeding K10,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding five years.

Step 2: what is a proper starting point?

32. There have been considerable changes in the penalty provision of which out lined above. These changes were made as the result of illegal trading and holding onto unlicensed firearms or ammunitions without or dealer’s licence. These amendments were done to tackle law and order problem of this country where high-powered guns are used in the tribal fights and in armed robberies. This poses a big threat to citizens against those who do not respect the laws of this country.
    
33. The Section 6 of the Firearms Act, a maximum fine before that amendments was K1500.00 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months and the defendants found to have been in possession of four firearms and therefore he was charged on four counts of owning a firearm of which he did not have licence to hold for each one of them.
    
34. After the Amendment the maximum penalty is a fine of K10,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. It had increased by K8500.00 for fine or four years six months’ imprisonment. Similarly, the penalty provision under Section 27 (1)(a) is K20,000.00 and 10 years’ imprisonment. It is increased by K18,500.00 from K1500.00 and imprisonment term by 9 years 6 months from four months. Further, the penalty provision under Section 65A (a) of the Firearms Act is a fine of K10,000.00 from no fine as penalty and for a imprisonment terms not exceeding five years from imprisonment terms no less than six months and not exceeding 12 months.
    
35. I did not have the benefit of reading any citation of case laws under this jurisdiction where the defendant had committed multiple charges under the same charges. However, I take into consideration the case State –vs-Bala Soal [2011] DC 2036 supra and State –Vs-Charles Pokam [2021] DC 6047 of some persuasive value to this determination, based on the fact of its decision made on the Firearms Act, while other case sighted is of relevance in guiding me to arrive at the appropriate verdict in the given circumstance before me. (State –vs- Datnan NC 2014)
    
36. In Richard Liri –Vs-State SCA NO/2006, from time to time the Supreme Court gives sentencing guidelines for various types of offences. These guidelines suggest what is often referred to as “starting point” for various types of offences. Sentencing is a discretionary matter and a sentencing judge may impose a sentence above, below or the same as the starting point depending on the circumstances of a particular case. I endorse the views of my brother, Justice Cannings in CR NOS 701 & 865 OF 2006 The State v Alphonse Polpolio and Jeffery Baru (2006) unreported, where he said “that sentencing is not an exact science. It is a discretionary process.” And it must be exercised according to the recognized principles of law
    
37. In most of the cases sighted, the starting point is at the mid-point so adopting those as guide in this case, I consider mid-point as follows;
    1. Commission of Offences under section 6 of the Firearms Act the midpoint would be K5000.00 and two and half years’ imprisonment each and severally on the six counts.
       2. The commission of the offence under Section 27 (1) (a) of the Firearms Act the midpoint would be K10,000.00 fine and five years’ imprisonment.
          100. The commission of the offence under Section 65A(a) of the Firearms Act the midpoint would be a fine of K5000.00 and two years six months’ imprisonment term. This mid-point applies to each of the four counts resulting for cumulative sentence.
               

Step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?

38. There are numerous sentences been imposed on offenders under this and other jurisdiction that is of guidance to this determination. The giving consideration and importance of these precedence are necessary and vital to deviate or evade from the feel of one being influenced by emotions or frustrations against ones alleged conduct, and to ensure to adhere to the proper and reasonable exercise of the discretion in the dispensation of justice, to establish some satisfaction and appreciation from parties before the court ,and at the same time, install public confidence and absorption of the penalty, that the court can exercise in a given circumstance for some senses of responsibility and adherence to the laws that govern the conduct of the citizens.
    
39. In Belawa –V- The State 1988—89 [PNGLR] 496 sets out the formula to determine on the imprisonment from a maximum term of 10 years’ imprisonment as to the amount of money misappropriated.
    
40. In John Aubuku –V- The State [1987] PNGLR 267, the offence of which is a rape, it is a serious offence, attracts custodian sentence and starting point would be at 5 years, whilst abduction starting point would be at 8 years on the maximum term of 15 years, but now aggravated rape amounts to death penalty.
    
41. It is observed that the sentencing trend is influenced by the mitigating and aggravating factors that is put before the court and weight of the factors draws the courts to a reasonable conclusion to the imposition of penalty.

Step 4: what is the head sentence?

43. The Court is duty bound to consider the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors in all cases whether the Offender pleaded guilty or not. The following are the circumstances of aggravation and mitigation.

44. The mitigating factors are;

1. Expression of remorse

b) First time offender
c) He plead guilty to all the charges.
d) He corporate with the police.

e) He is Bipolar Disorder patient.

6. He is a man of good character and assisted a lot of ordinary Papua New Guineans
7. He was holder of licences to some firearms of which he is entitled to hold ammunitions in possession but failed to renew them.

1. His offence had not affected anyone.

45 The aggravating factors are;

1. He is a foreigners and had no respect of the laws of this country.
2. He had in possession a number of firearms and ammunitions that question of his good character

100. He has personal history of appearing before the District Courts in Australia on various offences committed and the details of which are as follows:

PERSON HISTORY OF PAND JAMIE DAVID

46. The prosecution submits that the defendant pays a maximum fine as the aggravating factors outweighs his mitigating factors.
47. The defendant submits that the court takes into consideration of the defendant mitigating factors the hefty fine would be more suitable than an option for an imprisonment. It would be in the best interest of the offender and of society, if the defendant is fined and suggest K1000.00 for each count and be paid K6000.00 in total. However, if the court takes the option for an imprisonment, then, it be a suspended sentence. It is further submitted that some of the firearms of which he had been charged for has a licence to them, but was not been renewed before the material time of his arrest and this is to be distinguished.
48. In State –v- Jasason Dungoal (13/12/00 N2038 Kandakai J (he was then) stated as follows:

The usual purpose of criminal sentencing such as deterrence, restitution, or rehabilitation are also relevant factors for consideration and so are requirements to carefully consider and consider the factors for and against a prisoner before sentencing him or her.

49. The defendant is a first time offender in this jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea, but has strings of various offences of which he had been sentence by the Australian District Court in Brisbane, some of which had been suspended or custody sentence, whilst on others, he was discharged from the charges laid against him. Thought there is no record of him being in possession of firearm or ammunition without a licence in that jurisdiction, of which he had been found guilty or acquitted displays the type of personality of the defendant. The same person having in possession of firearms and ammunitions without licence does not reflect of a person of a good character, as alleged by himself and supported by others.
50. It is more reasonable to think, having a firearm would be for one’s security, but where many firearms are in the custody of a single person, without the license and ammunitions dealers license creates doubts of his doing behind the curtains in this country, as such poses a threat to this country and a deterrence sentence would be appropriate.
51. If he was of a good character, then, he should have complied with the laws of this country by having licence to the firearms and ammunitions. There is even no evidence of him having licence to certain firearms previously held in his custody as per his submission, but not been renewed. Whether the defendant had a licence previously or not , once it expires, he deems to have been in unlawful possession of a firearm, which should not be categorized or distinguished with that of a situation of him once having in possession of a firearm or ammunition with licence. Hence had no respect for the laws of this country.
52. The Firearms Act was Amended with increased penalty to deter people from illegal trafficking of firearms by citizens and having in possession of them, some of which are sophisticated and high powered firearms which poses threat to the people, and evidence of which are the killings in the tribal fights and armed robberies occurring and experienced by this country.The imposing of hefty fine in the amendment and increase in the imprisonment term is to curb the law and order problem in this country and the defendant did not have some sense of responsibility of this country’s intention by his conduct.The defendant deliberately ignored the laws of this sovereign state.
    
53. In the forgoing reasoning the aggravating factors outweighs the mitigating factors. The defendants conduct attracts the penalty of imprisonment and persuaded by the judgement in case State –vs-Bala Soal [2011] DC 2036 for a custodian sentence, however, this decision was made before the amendment when fine was at K1,500.00 and term of imprisonment was for 12 months.
    
54. Further, he is a first time offender in this jurisdiction, took the early plea and is remorseful for what he had done. The imposing of a maximum fine draws a sufficient penalty as deterrence, as the result The State –v- Jasason Dungoal (13/12/00 N2038 supra is considered.
    
55. The option for imprisonment is of a worst scenario. There is no evidence of the defendant committing any offence against any person. He only committed an offence against the laws of this country. The maximum penalty is reserved for the worst type of case. In such cases, the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, narrowing, the defense from gaining any weight to mitigate it. Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653; Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92.
    
56. In the circumstance the court makes the following order.
    
    1. For having in possessions of a firearm to wit a .22 riffle with serial numbers # 111169 in respect of which he was not the holder of a licence under Part IV of the Firearms Act, thereby contravening section 6 of the Firearms Act, the defendant to the maximum fine of K10,000.00
    2. For having possession of a firearm to wit, a Bennell M4 shotgun with Serial Number # M140359 in respect of which he was not the holder a licence under Part IV of the Firearms Act, and thereby contravening Section 6 of the Firearms Act, the defendant is to pay a maximum fine of K10,000.00
    3. For having possession of a firearm to wit, a Mosseberg pistol grip shotgun in respect of which he is not the holder of a licence under Part IV of the Firearms Act, and thereby contravening Section 6 of the Firearms Act, the defendant is to pay a maximum fine of K10,000.00
    4. For having in possession of a firearm to wit, a Double Barrel shotgun serial number scratched off in respect of which he not the holder of a licence, under Part IV of the Firearms Act, and thereby contravening Section 6 of the Firearms Act, the Defendant is to pay a maximum fine of K10000.00
    5. For having in possession of a pistol to wit a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol serial number, while not being the holder of a pistol licence in respect of the pistol, thus contravening Section 27 (1)(a) of the Firearms Act, and thereby contravening Section 27 (1)(a) of the Firearms Act, the defendant pays a maximum fine of K20,000.00.
    6. For having possession of a pistol with a 40 Smith and Wessen pistol bearing serial number WF 3937, while not being the holder of a pistol licence in respect of the pistol, thus contravening Section 27 (1)(a) of the Firearms Act, and thereby contravening Section 27 (1)(a) of the Firearms Act, the Defendant pay to pay maximum fine of K 20,000.00.
    7. For having possessions of 314 x .22 mm live ammunition, whilst not being the holder of the ammunition dealers license thus contravening section 65 A (a) of the Firearms Act, and thereby contravening Section 65A (a) of the Firearms Act, the Defendant is to pay a maximum fine of K10,000.00.
    8. For having in possession of a 196 x 9mm live ammunition, whilst not being the holder of an ammunition dealers licence, thus contravening s Section 65A (a) of the Firearms Act, the Defendant is sentenced to pay a maximum fine of K10,000.00
    9. For having possession of 141x12 gauge live ammunition whilst not being the holder of ammunition dealers licence, thus contravening Section 65A(a) of the Firearms Act, the defendant is to pay a maximum fine of K10,000.00.
    10. For having in possession of 237x 5.56mm live ammunition, whilst not being the holder of ammunition dealers licence thus, contravening section 65A(a) of the Firearms Act, the defendant to pay a maximum fine of K10,000.00.
    11. For having possession of 22x.40 calibres live ammunition whilst not being the holder of ammunition dealers licence thus contravening Section 65A(a) of the Firearms Act, the defendant is pay a maximum fine of K10,000.00.
    12. The defendants pay accumulative fine of K130,000.00.
    13. The Firearms confiscated be forfeited to the State, after forfeiture certificate is issued.
    14. The defendants K10,000.00 is converted to fine.
    15. The defendant pays the balance of K120,000.00 by the 20^th December 2020, failing the defendant be remand in custody until pays the fine.
    16. The defendant is discharged.