DC 6093
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDICTION]
Sum. No  1409 of 2021
C.B. No. 2403 of 2021 
BETWEEN
THE POLICE
Informant6094

AND
ALLAN GOLO
Defendant

Boroko:  Seth Tanei 

2021:  20th of September

SUMMARY OFFENCE –– Drunk and Disorderly – s 4 – Summary Offences Act 1977 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Sentence – Plea – Drunk and Disorderly, - principles of sentencing discussed and considered –Imprisonment for a term of 3 months.

Cases Cited

State v Benson [2006] PGNC 68; 4481
Yalibakut –v- The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 SC890 
State –v- Dua [2013] PGNC 8; N4957
Police –v- Koin & 3 Others [2011] DCR 1277-1280 of 2011, 08.11.2011, Unreported
Police –v- Yomsa [2021] PGDC 105; DC6061 
Police-v- Kairi Awa[2021] Sum 1409 of 2021 15.09.2021, Unreported. 

References

NIL

Legislation

Summary Offences Act 1977
Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 2018 
Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986

Counsel
Sergeant Wilson Golina, for the Informant 
The Offender in Person
RULING ON SENTENCE
20th September 2021

Seth Tanei: Allan Golo pleaded guilty to the charge of being Drunk and Disorderly under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1977 on 13th September 2021. 

2.	Parties also made submissions on sentence on 13th September 2021 and I reserved my ruling to today

FACTS

3.	These are the facts to which the Offender pleaded guilty. 

4.	On 15th August 2021 at around 2.00 pm , the Offender was in front of Big Rooster at Boroko, National Capital District.

5.	At that time, he was under the influence of alcohol and acted disorderly and was a nuisance to the general public. He was caught in the act by the Police who apprehended him and took him to the Police Station at Boroko where he was formally arrested, charged and detained. 

6.	The facts also say that he is a habitual offender of this particular offence and his actions have affected many innocent people in Boroko. 

ANTECEDENT REPORT

7.	The Offender is 26years old. He hails from Katatai Village, South Fly District, Western Province. He is unemployed and is married with three (3) children. He resides at Joyce Bay, Sabama, NCD. He was previously convicted for the Offence o being drunk and disorderly. 

ALLOCOTUS:

8.	During Allocotus, the Offender said, “Me tok sorry tru lo eye blo kot. Me askim lo good behaviour bond.” It means I apologise to this Court and ask the Court to put me on Good Behaviour Bond. 

ISSUES:

9.	What sentence should the Court impose on the offender?

THE LAW:

10.	The Offender was charged under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1977. 

11.	Section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1977 provides that; 

‘A person who is found drunk in a public place and who acts in a manner that disturbs a reasonable member of the public or is likely to disturb a reasonable member of the public, is guilty of an offence.”

12.	The Penalty for this offence is provided for under section 4 of the Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 2018 which sets the penalty at K 2000 fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months. 

PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
13.	I adopt the decision making process in the cases of State v Benson [2006] PGNC 68; 4481 and State –v- Mavuug [2012] PNGNC 255; N4898 which I used in the case of Police-v- Kairi Awa[2021] Sum 1409 of 2021 20.09.2021, Unreported.  This is the process that was used; 

Step 1: what is the maximum penalty?
Step 2: what is a proper starting point?
Step 3: what other sentences have been imposed recently for equivalent offences?
Step 4: what is the head sentence?
Step 5: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted from the term of imprisonment?
Step 6: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY?

14.	The prescribed maximum penalty under the Summary Offences Act is a fine of K2000 or imprisonment for six months. However, the maximum is, in most cases, reserved for the worst case scenario. 

STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT?

15.	In order to come up with a sentence, the Court must start somewhere. This is the starting point. 

16.	I held in a number of cases that in plea matters, the mid-point is the proper starting point for sentencing. 

17.	Hence, the starting point in this case is K 1, 000 fine or 3 months imprisonment. 

STEP 3: WHAT SENTENCES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR EQUIVALENT OFFENCES?

18.	I have not come across so many reported cases that dealt with the Offence of Drunk and Disorderly. 

19.	In the case of Police –v- Koin & 3 Others [2011] DCR 1277-1280 of 2011, 08.11.2011, Unreported his His Worship John Kaumi (as he then was) comprehensively dealt with the law and penalty to the offence of Being Drunk and Disorderly. That is. In that case, the offenders pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly where they entered the premises of a school a disturbed the students and proceedings at the school while being drunk. They were sentenced to 2 months imprisonment each. 

20.	In Police –v- Yomsa [2021] PGDC 105; DC6061; the Offender pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly. He was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for this offence. In that case the offender also caused damage to property belonging to another person. 

21.	In Police –v- Koive Hove, the Offender pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly. He was sentenced to two (2) months imprisonment, fully suspended. The Court considered his mitigating factors in its sentence. 

22.	In the case of Police –v- Kairi Awa, the Offender pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly. He was sentenced to three (3) months imprisonment due to the fact that he was harassing innocent bystanders at the time of the offence and he had prior convictions. 

23.	The reported cases showed that sentences for the offence of being drunk and disorderly depended on the manner in which the offence was committed. The reported cases showed that the sentences ranged from 2- 3 months imprisonment. 

STEP 4: WHAT IS THE HEAD SENTENCE FOR EACH OFFENCE?

24.	The Court will give the Offender the benefit of the doubt on mitigating factors applying the principles in Yalibakut –v- The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890.

25.	I will consider both the mitigating and aggravating factors. 

26.	The mitigating factors are; 

a)	Guilty Plea

27.	 The aggravating factors are; 

a)	He was a nuisance in a Public Place.
b)	He has a prior conviction for this offence. 

28.	Sergeant Wilson Golina of Police Prosecutions submitted that the Offender be given a non-custodial sentence. 

29.	As I have expressed in the case of Police –v- Koive Hove and Police –v- Kairi Awa, being drunk and disorderly in public has become prevalent in the city and is a concern for this court. 

30.	The sentence that I impose in this case must be deterrent in nature and must also rehabilitate the Offender. It must make the offender change for the better and must deter him from committing the offence. 

31.	I note that there are more aggravating factors than mitigating factors. While he pleaded guilty, he was a nuisance at Boroko at the time of the Offence. He also has a prior conviction for the same offence. 

32.	Both the Prosecution and the Offender asked for a non-custodial sentence during submissions on sentence. However, the question that I am faced with is whether a Good Behaviour Bond will serve one or more purposes of sentences. 

33.	Sentences are for the purpose of Retribution, Separation, Rehabilitation and Deterrence. 

34.	I am of the view that a Good Behaviour Bond will not serve any of the purposes of sentencing. This is because the Offender was previously convicted of this offence. He has not learned his lesson and has returned to commit this offence again. It is a waste of time putting someone on Good Behaviour Bond when he would commit the offence again. I have difficulty believing the offender’s plea that he would not commit the offence again. This is because the facts say that he is a habitual offender for this particular offence. 

35.	When I looked closely at the facts of this matter, I noted that it is similar to the case of Police –v- Kairi Ava.

36.	I am minded to give the Offender a custodial sentence for this offence as it is the only way the Offender will be rehabilitated and it will deter him from committing this offence again and others from committing this offence. 

37.	I therefore impose a sentence of three (3) months imprisonment. 

STEP 5: SHOULD THE PRE-SENTENCE PERIOD IN CUSTODY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT?

38.	Yes. Section 3 (2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) Act 1986, gives the power to the Court to deduct the pre-sentence time spent in custody. The Offender in this matter has been in custody since 15th August 2021. One month, 5 days will be deducted from the total sentence. 

STEP 6: SHOULD ALL OR PART OF THE SENTENCE BE SUSPENDED?

39.	I have considered all the factors in this matter and I am of the view that none of the sentence should be suspended.

CONCLUSION 

40.	In conclusion, the Court sentences the Offender to three months imprisonment in hard labour. 

SENTENCE

41.	 The following is the sentence of the Court; 

1.	Allan Golo, having pleaded guilty and being convicted of the offence of Being Drunk and Disorderly under Section 4 of the Summary Offences Act is sentenced to three (3) months imprisonment in hard labour. 

2.	Pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the Offender’s period in custody of 1 month, 5 days is deducted from the total sentence of three (3) months.  

3.	The Offender shall serve 1 month, 25 days in hard labour at Bomana Corrections Institution. 

4.	A Warrant of Commitment is issued forthwith. 

Lawyer for the Informant  		Police Prosecutions 
Lawyer for the Offender: 		In Person