Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Kasaipwalova [1976] PGNC 60; N80 (16 December 1976)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N80

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
V
JOHN KASAIPWALOVA

Waigani

Saldanha J
15-19 November 1976
22-25 November 1976
29-30 November 1976
1-3 December 1976
6-10 December 1976
13-16 December 1976

SALDANHA J: The accused is charged with the offence of stealing on an indictment which contains two counts. In the first count he is charged with stealing from the Govnt of Papua New Guinea the sum of K15,000, which had been given to him with a direction than that it should be applied to the establishment of an arts school at Kiriwina. The second count charges him with stealing from the Government of Papua New Guinea the sum of $5000 which had been given to him with a direction that it should be applied to the establishment of a cultural centre at Kiriwina.

The accused is a young man who appears to be in his late twenties or early thirties. He is a native of Yalumgwa Village in Kiriwina or Trobriand Islands which is the largest of a group of islands also known as Kiriwina or Trobriand Islands. He is undoubtedly a man of intelligence, dedicated to culture and the arts, and particularly to those of the Trobriand Islands. He is a man of many parts, well known as an actor and playwright. He has a reputation for being a gifted writer on cultural and artistic matters.

As the Kabisawali Village Development Corporation Limited (KVDC) and the Kabisawali movement feature prominently in this case it might be convenient to start by stating the accused’s connection with KVDC, and explaining what is meant by the Kabisawali movement.

The accused is the Managing Director of KVDC. KVDC is a limited company with five shareholders, including the accused, each of whom holds one share of the nominal value of K1.00. The fully paid up capital is K5.00. Its registered office is at Yalumgwa Village. Its head office was originally at Yalumgwa but later transferred to Port Moresby.

There is a cultural movement in the main Trobriand Island known as Kabisawali. This movement was opposed by a group of Local Government Councillors and their supporters.

None of the prosecution witnesses have attempted to describe Kabisawali. We are indebted to the accused for a description of Kabisawali. In his unsworn statement from the dock he said as follows:

“I would like this court to take note that Kabisawali is a Kiriwina word means an attempt or enterprise to create and to build up resources in the face of hardship and uncertainties. It refers to the communal activities of meeting times of hardship, times of uncertainties and times of changes. More particularly it emphasizes those activities within those times in such a way that what is foremost is the idea that man does not lose his dignity and the creative potential of the community is at the same time encouraged to grow and flourish...

In general the Kabisawali Movement is an attempt by the village people in Trobriand Islands to create the basis on which they could approach the times of changes and deal with the onslaught of external pressures on the traditional Kiriwina culture.

The village people recognized that change in all spheres both politically and in the economic field as well as in some social customs was inevitable and in order to maintain individual and communal identity it was necessary to directly participate in the process of change with the hope of retaining a self-respect and identity in the total process.”

He said he first heard of the Kabisawali movement in 1958 while he was still at Primary School. He said that the concepts and aims of the cultural development envisaged and practised by the Kabisawali movement were represented by its corporate movement, KVDC. He describes KVDC as the legal entity of the Kabisawali movement and says that the Articles of Association of KVDC attempt to articulate in the English language the principles of the Kabisawali movement. His own role in the movement started in 1972. The villagers being unable to preserve the good in their old native culture and resist the onslaught of the new foreign culture in sheer frustration appealed to him for help. He accepted the challenge and became the spearhead of the movement. Presumably his own role as a leader of this movement started with the incorporation of KVDC.

On behalf of KVDC the accused submitted a proposal to the National Cultural Council (N.C.C.) entitled Proposal for “Trobriand Islands Village Institute for Arts” (Exh. 26) and asked for a grant. This proposal was discussed at the 12th meeting of the N.C.C. on the 20th February 1974. The N.C.C. decided to make a grant of $20,000. Minute 6.5 (Exh.27) is recorded in the following terms:

“Decided: $20,000 approved for construction of museum and ancillary facilities. Request detailed submission on proposed expenditure.”

The decision of the N.C.C. was conveyed to the accused by Mr Loch Blatchford, the Acting Director of Cultural Affairs, by a letter dated 5th March, 1974. The Office of Cultural Affairs is the Secretariat of the N.C.C and the Director is the Executive Officer of the N.C.C. At this particular time Mr Haugie was under-studying Mr Blatchford with a view to eventually taking over from him. Mr Haugie was appointed Director, Cultural Affairs, in November 1974.

At the 14th meeting of the N.C.C. held on 13th May, 1974 the N.C.C. altered its original offer and decided that they would make a grant of $5000 only to KVDC and keep $5000 in reserve in case the rival Local Government group wanted a similar grant. The balance of $15000 was to be given after an evaluation had been made of how the initial $5000 had been spent. According to Mr Haugie this change was made after some members of the N.C.C. visited the Trobriand Islands and discovered that there was a rival movement opposed to Kabisawali. According to Mr Blatchford there had been an objection from Mr Charles Lepani, a supporter of the Local Government group, that as the Kabisawali movement was opposed to the Local Government group it would not be fair to make a grant of a large sum of money to Kabisawali. The members of the N.C.C. were hoping that the two rival groups would forget their differences and get together. The cheque for $5000 was sent to the accused by Mr Blatchford with a covering letter dated 12th June 1974: (Exh.39).

The 21st meeting of the N.C.C. was held in two parts. The first part was held on 21st April, 1975, and the second on 24th April, 1975. By this time the accused was a member of the N.C.C. and Mr Haugie was both Director of Cultural Affairs and a member of the N.C.C.

At this second part of the meeting on 24th April, 1975, the accused came up with a late application which has been described in the Minutes (Exh. 30) as “Special Agenda Item (late) Trobriands”. It would appear that the accused made an application for a grant on the strength of a paper which he circulated to the members describing the establishment of a “Modern Art School on Kiriwina” (Exh. 29). The N.C.C. agreed to make a grant of K15,000.

According to Mr Haugie on the 24th April, 1975, the accused offered to submit a break-down of the costs and on 24th May, 1975, he wrote a letter to Mr Moi Avei, the Chairman of the N.C.C., giving this breakdown and enclosing a set of sketch plans of Sopi Arts School. Mr Moi Avei passed this letter to Mr Haugie with a note at the bottom “N.C.C. has approved this please process it as swiftly as possible”.

It would appear that by letter dated 27th May, 1975, Mr Haugie wrote to the accused informing him that a cheque for K15,000 would be sent to him. The accused acknowledged this letter in a reply dated 28th May, 1975, (Exh. 32) and requested that the money should be paid directly into Sopi Arts Centre Account with the Bank of South Pacific, Port Moresby Branch. This was done.

On 12th August, 1974, Mr Haugie wrote to the accused asking him for a report on the expenditure of $5000 on the Cultural Centre for inclusion in the N.C.C.’s annual report to the House of Assembly (Exh. 34). The accused made no reply. In August or September 1975 Mr Haugie wrote to the accused asking for a report on Sopi Arts School (Exh. 35). Again there was no reply. On 11th March 1976, Mr Haugie wrote to the accused once again asking for a report on Sopi Arts School (Exh. 36). There was no reply.

As no reports were forthcoming from the accused on 13th July 1976, Mr Haugie sent Mr Tawagi, the Finance Officer of the N.C.C., to the Trobriand Islands to investigate. As a result of a written report made by Mr Tawagi, Mr Haugie referred the matter to the Police for investigation. He wrote a letter to Chief Inspector Dorkau Tasion on 14th July, 1976.

Tasion obtained search warrants and arranged for certain accounts with the Bank of South Pacific at Port Moresby and the A.N.Z. Bank at Boroko to be examined.

On 23rd July, 1976, accompanied by Sub-Inspector Benjamin Matthew he went to the Trobriand Islands. The two police officers stayed there until 28th July, 1976, when they returned to Port Moresby. During that time they interviewed three chiefs and a number of villagers. Sub.Inspector Matthew took a number of photographs of the Buildings at Sopi Arts School. These are Exh. 23 (A, B, C, D, and E). Exh. 24 and Exh. 25 (A, B, C, D and E).

On 29th July, 1976, Chief Inspector Tasion went to the accused’s office at Hohola. He told the accused he wished to talk to him and asked him to come to his office. The accused enquired: “Is this about the National Cultural Council?” On being told it was, the accused asked why the police officer could not talk to him in his (accused’s) office. Inspector Tasion said he preferred to talk to accused in his own office. The accused said that he had to see some friends off at the airport and said he would come at 2.00 p.m.

The accused came at 2.15 p.m. Sub.Inspector Benjamin Matthew was present. Chief Inspector Tasion told the accused he would like to question him about the grant of K20,000 made to him by the N.C.C., K5000 in June, 1974, and K15,000 in July, 1975. The accused refused to answer any questions. But just before he left the accused made some comments which the officer recorded shortly afterwards in his note book. The note book contains the following record:

“I had just said to Mr Kasaipwalova: &#8s this the case which yich you refused to answer any questions?’ He said ‘Yes, to br to me myme my lawyer is Ikenna Nwokolo and I don’t know where he is at present. I am soave (one of the offe office17;s name is David) but can you make it another time. This whole thi ridiculous lous lous really. Tly reason there hen any tany trouble is because we haven’t prepared any repy report yet but we got everything there. All ccounts, statemenverytveryt Loove Dave, next time can can you have a film projeprojector here. We want to show this film we made with the grant.҈ an all see the work of our students in the Cabineabinet room.’ ”

After ster saying that they had given scholarshipstudents the accused continued:

“The only reas reason why I have not made the report is because of pressure with businesses. This matter is very simple, if only I had been told this morning.”

The accused produced a copy of a letter which he had written to Mr Haugie.

After obtaining a warrant of arrest from the Boroko District Court Chief Inspector Tasion arrested the accused in the late afternoon of the same day.

I shall deal first of all with count 2 because it is concerned with an offence which is alleged to have been committed first in point of time.

When the accused received the cheque for $5000 he deposited it in an interest bearing term deposit account with the A.N.Z. Bank on the 28th June, 1974, initially for a period of five months. The term was extended from time to time and the money remained on deposit for a total period of about 11 months.

The accused had another account with the A.N.Z. Bank, a cheque or current account, called the Kabisawali Village Development Corporation (Trobriand Arts Account). On the 22nd of June, 1974, this account was overdrawn to the extent of $170.65. The accused arranged for overdraft facilities of up to $5000 on his current account using the deposit of $5000 as security. By the 8th April, 1975, the current account was overdrawn to the extent of $4,992.60. On 6th May, 1975, the accused closed the deposit account which now amounted to $5,294.85. (It had earned an interest of $294.85). On the 7th May, 1975, he paid this sum of $5,294.85 into his current account and after deduction of the overdraft service fee and the interest on the overdraft there remained in the current account a credit balance of $215.65. The account was closed on 24th May, 1975. Bruce Stevens, an officer of the A.N.Z. Bank, in the course of being cross-examined by Mr Wall, counsel for the accused, stated that the Trobriand Arts Account was being operated for the purchase and acquisition of artefacts. In applying for overdraft facilities the accused in his letter to the Manager of the A.N.Z. Bank (Exh. 5) said he wanted a reasonable working capital that would ensure a commercial success of the art sales and performances.

The case for the prosecution on count 2 is that the accused used the grant of $5000 for his own private commercial purposes and therefore stole the money.

Now, if the site at the Cultural Centre had been cleared and the buildings erected in the same way as the clearance of the site and the erection of buildings at the Sopi Art Centre had been effected very little money would have been spent by the accused. Except for one building which has a corrugated iron roof and hinges and door knobs on doors, all the materials used in the construction of buildings were bush materials.

Before obtaining the grant the accused had told the N.C.C. that the Cultural Centre was estimated to cost $62,5000. What we saw on the site would cost nothing like this amount. It would appear therefore that the accused had used the grant of $5000 for his own private purposes, namely to finance the commercial activity of buying and selling artefacts.

The prosecution adduced evidence showing how the buildings at the Sopi Art Centre had been constructed. They called witnesses who had actually taken part in the work of clearing the ground, breaking rocks, cutting trees and erecting the buildings. As will appear hereafter these witnesses have testified as to the materials used, as to whether they were paid for their labour and as to whether or not money had been expended on the materials used.

No such evidence has been led with respect to the clearing of the site and the erection of buildings at the Cultural Centre. While the buildings at the Sopi Art Centre have been erected entirely with local materials obtained mainly from the local bush a certain amount of money has obviously been spent on the buildings at the Cultural Centre. One of the oblong buildings, which is fairly large, is roofed with corrugated iron sheeting and the rooms have doors with hinges and door knobs.

Also, the amount given as a grant for the Cultural Centre is small, only $5000. Initially a grant of $20000 had been made and the accused had been informed that this would be paid within a couple of weeks. In the event the sum of $5000 was given to the accused much later. It is possible, although to my mind not very likely, that the accused, in anticipation of receiving the $20000 that he had been promised, had committed himself to spending some money, had spent his own money, and later when he received the grant of $5000 used it to reimburse himself for the money he had already spent.

The Minute, which records the making of the grant, states that the grant was for the erection of a museum and ancillary facilities. This was recorded when a grant of $20000 had been approved of. Now, in the proposal put forward by the accused the museum was estimated to cost $8000 only and therefore the N.C.C. could not have intended that the whole of the $20000 should be spent on the construction of a museum and ancillary facilities. The grant of $5000 was made on the same terms and conditions and could have been spent on cultural activities, and not necessarily on the construction of buildings.

For these reasons I find that the State has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused on count 2, and I therefore acquit him on count 2.

The case for the State on count 1 is as follows. I have mentioned before that the accused was present at a meeting of the N.C.C. when a grant for K15,000 had been approved for Sopi Art School. Apparently the approval of the Minister for Culture had to be obtained before the grant money could be paid. On the 24th May, 1975, the accused wrote to Mr Moi Avei, the Chairman of the N.C.C. that he had discovered from enquiries he had made that the matter had not been placed before the Minister. This is Exh. 31. By letter dated 27th May, 1975, (Exh. 13) Mr Haugie informed the accused that the matter had now been placed before the Minister for his consideration. On or about the 29th May, 1975, the accused produced this letter to the Manager of the Bank of South Pacific. He told the Manager that the grant would be K15,000. On the strength of this letter he asked for an overdraft of K5000. He wanted this money so that he could get a draft for K4,500 in order to pay for the stock-in-trade of a trade store in Kiriwina which the accused had purchased from a European lady called Mrs Holland. The accused got this draft and later handed it over to Mrs Holland in payment for the goods. The overdraft facilities were granted in an account called Sopi Art Centre. This account had been opened on 18th February, 1975, with a sum of K200. At the time when he got overdraft facilities there was a credit of K1.70 only.

On 28th May, 1975, the accused wrote a letter to Mr Haugie (Exh. 32). He referred to Mr Haugie’s letter dated 27th May, 1975, (Exh. 31) and requested that the grant money, when it became available, be paid directly to the Sopi Arts Centre account with the Bank of South Pacific, Port Moresby Branch. He asked for an acknowledgement of this instruction. He received an acknowledgement from Mr Haugie by letter dated 29th May, 1975, (Exh. 33).

On the 15th July, 1975, a cheque for K15,000 (Exh. 15) drawn by the Department of Finance and payable to Sopi Arts School was credited to the Sopi Arts Centre account. By this time the account was overdrawn by K5,021.30.

On 18th July, 1975, a cheque for K9500 (one of a number of cheques in the bundle marked Exh. 14) payable to M. Worsley was debited to this account, leaving a credit balance of K475.55.

On 20th September, 1975, a cheque for K9635.86 drawn by M.D. Worsley was paid into the Sopi Art Centre account. This cheque was dishonoured and a debit entry for K9635.86 appears in the account on the following day.

A cheque for K9500 (bundle Exh. 14) drawn by Martin Molosi payable to John Kasaipwalova was debited to this account on the 22nd September, 1975. This cheque was paid into accused’s own personal account, namely, John Kasaipwalova account with the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation together with a cheque for K2000 drawn by Bulubulu Trade Store making a total of K11,500. This appears as a credit entry on 22nd September, 1975, on the ledger sheets marked Exh. 20.

On 22nd September, 1975, the accused transferred the sum of K10,000 from this personal account to the Kabisawali Village Development Corporation account with the Bank of South Pacific, by cheque (Exh. 22). The sum of K10,000 is debited in ledger sheets Exh. 20 on 25th September, 1975, and credited in the ledger sheets Exh. 18 on the 22nd September, 1975. Two cheques were drawn on this account both in favour of Michael David Worsley, one for K7,500 on 10th September, 1975 (Exh. 49) and another K4,707.43 on 13th September, 1975 (Exh. 50). Debit entries in respect of these cheques appear in Exh. 18 on 19th September, 1975, and 22nd September, 1975, respectively.

A cheque for K9,635.86 drawn by Mr Worsley was paid into the account Sopi Art Centre, Bank of South Pacific, on 24th September, 1975. The prosecution say that of the K15,000 the accused received he used K4,500 for the purchase of the goods of a trade store and gave K9,500 to Mr Worsley making a total of K14,000. They say he must have used another K1000 for purposes of his own and thus stolen altogether K15,000.

If one looks at the ledger sheets Exh. 10 it appears that while Mr Worsley received K9,500 from the Sopi Art Centre he paid back K9, 635.86. But a cheque for K9, 635.86 drawn by Worsley in favour of Sopi Art Centre was dishonoured and it was only after a cheque for K4, 707.43 (in addition to the cheque for K7, 500) was paid to him on 22nd September that Worsley was able to pay Sopi Art Centre the sum of K9, 635.86. After Worsley received the K7, 500 the KVDC account, Bank of South Pacific, was in the red. It was only after accused paid K10, 000 from his own personal account with the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation into the KVDC account that the account came into credit. And of the K10, 000 from his own personal account, K9, 500 came from the Sopi Art Centre. The prosecution say that K9, 500 of the K9, 635.86 Worsley paid to Sopi Art Centre came from Sopi Art Centre. I shall at a later stage give the accused’s version of these transactions.

The case for the prosecution is that the sum of K15,000 given to the accused as a grant for the Sopi Art Centre was given to him on the basis of what has been referred to as the Sopi paper (Exh. 29) and his letter dated 24th May, 1975, and the accompanying sketch plans (Exh. 31). The Sopi paper (Exh. 29) is essentially a discussion of the ideas that were to be the basis for the establishment of the Sopi Art School. But the Sopi paper is not devoted entirely to the discussion and development of ideas as Mr. Wall has maintained. Thus at page 4 the accused states:

“By 1974 we had begun to form ourselves into a flexible association and had learnt from each other. As we discussed techniques and ideas, we formulated our own conceptions. In December 1974, Molosi, Meyakase, Valaosi and myself inspected the site at Bweka and started clearing for the first building for our art centre. At the time of writing, the first building is nearing completion. Gayiowa and Talemwa have taken over the construction.”

And later on the same page he says:

“We saw the necessity for an art centre of our own that would be a focal point for us to learn from our own environment and the outside world. We wanted an art centre that would cater to the needs of our own creative people as well as provide facilities for artists wishing to come from other parts of Papua New Guinea and overseas to teach and learn from us.”

This passage clearly refers to the construction of buildings.

According to the evidence of Mr Haugie the accused was told by the N.C.C. that before the money was given to him the accused would have to submit details of the cost of the buildings. He says that in accordance with this request the accused submitted on 24th May, 1975, an expenditure budget for Stage 2 together with a set of sketch plans (Exh. 31). The budget was for a total of K37, 400. The prosecution say that no money was spent by the accused on any of the activities for which he had submitted the detailed estimate.

The prosecution called two witnesses who helped to clear the site and erect the buildings, a village headman called Pakarai Kululaguva and a man called Boneyei Mokarebida. Pakarai built two of the buildings shown in the photograph Exh. 24. He said the buildings were built with bush materials, some obtained on the site and some obtained from his own village. He also helped to build the buildings of which Exh. 23C is a photograph. He received no payment for the work he did. He received a document headed “Kabisawali Bill of Exchange” which read:

“Pay to order of Valu Gabena - Liluta Village the sum of Four Hundred shares in Kabisawali Village Development Corporation Ltd. @ K1.00 per share K400 payable for the supply of labour and materials on the construction of Sopi Arts School”.

This is Exh. 48.

Boneyei testified that he built four buildings at Bweka with the help of villagers from Kwaibwaga Village. He helped to clear the site, break stones and cut trees. Neither he nor anyone else received any payment. The materials used were front the bush obtained locally and some brought from his own village. No transport was provided, nor food, nor tobacco. All that he received was one tin of fish which had to be shared with all the workers on the site. He received a document similar to the one given to Pakarai except that his was for 500 shares at K1.00 each making a total value of K500. This is Exh. 47.

The witness Martin Molosi gave the following evidence. He joined the Creative Art Centre at Port Moresby in March, 1974, and finished in July 1975. During Christmas, 1974, he was on holiday in the Trobriand Islands. He discussed with accused how to start Sopi Art Centre and they planned it between them. He helped to cut trees, break rocks and clear the site with the help of students and village people. He worked for a week and received no pay. He returned to Creative Art School in January, 1975, and left in July, 1975, when he started working for KVDC. He did copper beatings, sign-board writing and graphic pen drawings. He went to the Trobriand Islands in January, 1976 and found that seven buildings had been built. On this occasion he helped to clear the ground, cut trees and repair roofs and walls. When he arrived there were 25 students who came from different villages in the Trobriand Islands. They came there daily. These students did carvings for an exhibition in Port Moresby. He himself received no payment for the work he did nor did the students.

He was asked by Mr Ryan:

“What about expenses?”

He replied:

“When we were doing our planning I talked to students and told them we were not going to get allowances. We asked John to make a note and when he got money he would pay us.”

Another question Mr Ryan asked was:

“What was the arrangement between KVDC and village leaders as far as payment for clearing work (is concerned)?”

Martin Molosi replied:

“We talked with village leaders that money would not be given to the village people but they would receive shares in the corporation. The money was to go to the corporation to be used for the good of the people.”

Martin Molosi signed eight cheques drawn on the Sopi Art Centre account with the Bank of South Pacific. These are all consecutive from Nos. P015602 to P015609 dating from 24th February 1975, to 5th April, 1975, and totalling $187.55. He said these cheques were drawn by him in payment of allowances at the rate of K5.00 per week in respect of Meyakasa and Mawasa who were students of Sopi Art Centre at Port Moresby.

He also drew a cheque for K9, 500 on the same account in favour of John Kasaipwalova. This is cheque No. P015622 dated 19th September, 1975, in the bundle of cheques marked Exh. 14. The cheque had been filled in when it was presented to him by the accused for his signature. He signed it at accused’s request. The accused was one of the authorized signatories but Molosi is unable to say why the accused did not himself sign the cheque.

This witness also ordered copper sheeting from Territory Plumbing in Spring Garden Road on behalf of Sopi Art Centre. This was the only firm from whom he got the copper sheeting.

On 20th January, 1976, the accused made an application for a thirty days Credit Account with Territorial Plumbing Supplies and Services Pty. Ltd. It is not in dispute that this company is the same as the Territory Plumbing referred to in the evidence of Martin Molosi. The name of this company has now been changed to Moresby Plumbing Supplies and Service Association. The application asked for credit facilities to be given to “Kabisawali Trade - Sopi Arts Centre”. Mr Harold Robert Carrier, the Managing Director of this company, has produced six invoices (Exh. 46). These are in respect of goods sold on credit to either KVDC or KVDC Sopi Arts Centre. The goods are mainly 6´ x 4´ 24 gauge copper sheeting, some brushes, nail punches, claw hammers and straight swiss nips. All these invoices were signed by Martin Morobubuna. Morobubuna is one of Molosi’s names. The total value of the goods ordered and supplied is K690.70, and they have not been paid for.

One of the witnesses called by the prosecution is Peter Vivian Goatley. He is the Credit Manager of Air Niugini. His evidence is briefly as follows: Air Niugini is the only airline which has a scheduled air route from Losuia to Port Moresby and as from 1st July, 1975 KVDC acted as agent for Air Niugini in the Trobriand Islands. KVDC have an account with Air Niugini. This started in May, 1974, and Air Niugini closed this account in December, 1975. There is still an outstanding amount of K4,339.85.

In the course of cross examination Mr Wall showed Martin a list containing 37 names (Exh.Def.16). Martin agreed that this was a list of the students of Sopi Arts Centre. Mr Goatley has compared the names on this list with the manifests in both directions, from Port Moresby to Losuia and Losuia to Port Moresby and also checked them against names in the outstanding account with KVDC. For the period 1st July, 1975 to 31st December, 1975, there were five tickets for Kasaipwalova, one for Tokulaeya and one for Tokwemai. These names appeared both in the list Exh. Def. 16 and also in the manifests. No money has been paid in respect of any of these tickets. For the period 31st December, 1975 to the present time there are five names which appear on the list and also on the manifest. These are K. Beona, Kasaipwalova, Tuyega, G. Beona and Sibunakau. Sibunakau travelled on a travel warrant issued by the Public Service Board, Tuyega paid cash and Kasaipwalova paid by cheque. Mr Goatley said that Beona paid by cash. He did not say whether it was K. Beona or G. Beona but an inspection of the photostat copies of the tickets shows that both K. Beona and G. Beona paid by cash.

Robert Graham Boswell is the Manager of Regal Bakery. He received by post a copy of a petition addressed to the Governor-General and the Chief Ombudsman. This is a lengthy document. The accused complained that a nepotistic group of public servants were making unconstitutional use of the machinery of the State in order to discredit him and cause disruption to KVDC. He was referring to what he called his humiliating arrest and detention in custody on 29th July, 1976, on the outrageous charge of having stolen K20, 000 from the State. He names Mr Charles Lepani, the Director of the Central Planning Office, his wife Mrs Barbara Lepani and the Public Prosecutor, Mr Kevin Egan, as being the members of this nepotistic group, and calls for an investigation into their unconstitutional activities and abuse of office.

He said among other things:

“The National Cultural Council decided to release the other K15, 000 in June 1975, after reviewing the progress we had made in the buildings of the Sopi Arts Centre and the vibrancy of our cultural ideas for development.

At the insistence of our chiefs and directors, the business arm was reimbursed for some of the finances advanced in the past twelve months. The balance of the grant was used to complete the first stage of the cultural development programme of the Sopi Arts Centre.”

In his defence before this Court the accused had made an unsworn statement from the dock. It is a lengthy statement running into nearly 100 pages and recorded over a period of four days. Most of it is a constant repetition of what his ideas and concepts are about Kabisawali, culture and the arts, and what he was hoping to achieve for the Trobriand Islands. Most of it is irrelevant.

Parts of this statement relate to the cultural centre. As I have acquitted the accused on count 2 there is no point in making reference to these parts. I shall confine myself to mentioning briefly his defence to count 1, concerning the Sopi Arts Centre.

The accused had accounts in many banks and in each bank he had several accounts. He has given details of cheques drawn on these accounts. All these cheques are drawn on accounts other than the Sopi Art Centre account with the Bank of South Pacific. He says all these cheques were drawn to finance activities in connection with the Sopi Arts Centre and the cultural centre. He says this was done because of the lack of banking facilities in the Trobriand Islands and sometimes because some of the signatories were not available.

He denies that he had agreed to submit a detailed estimate in connection with Sopi Arts Centre. He contends that the information he supplied in his letter dated 27th May, 1975, and the accompanying sketch plans were done by him voluntarily. He maintains that the grant of K15,000 was made on the basis of the Sopi paper (Exh. 29) that this paper was about ideas and not buildings and that the grant was not confined to the erection of buildings but was to embrace the whole field of art and culture, such as, the writing of books, the production of plays, the art of painting and carving and so on. He is suggesting that the grant of K15,000 has been spent on some of these artistic activities if not on buildings.

He says that the trade store was purchased as a reward to the villagers for the work they had done and the services they had rendered in the construction of the Sopi Arts Centre and the cultural centre.

He says that Mr Worsley was employed by KVDC as a consultant and the cheque for K9,500 was given to him in order to enable him to finance the activities of Sopi Arts Centre.

He explains the transfer of K9,500 from the Sopi Arts Centre account to his own personal account with the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation in this way. He says it was a mechanical auditing process of keeping records for their own internal purposes. The sum of K9,500 was transferred to this account in order “to keep records of transactions and dealings involving costs and receipts of expenditures made by the functions on Trobriand Islands”.

In another part of his statement he says:

“The cheque of K9,500 made payable to A/c John Kasaipwalova is for mechanical purposes of ensuring that we keep on record the moneys and expenditures relating to Trobriand Islands activities. That amount plus other cash proceeds released through that Pass Book Account I have elaborated were then transferred to KVDC which was main and central operating account for activities of the Corporation ... As I had pointed out earlier the opening up of many accounts in individual subsidiary activities of KVDC Ltd. achieved the result of allowing us to keep exact records of receipts and payments being made by the activities of KVDC but it introduced a practical problem of difficulties in getting the right signatories to act at the right time for meeting the various expenses by cheque accounts. As a result not all the bank accounts paid their own individual functional accounts. The main reason that we had records for it and it was quite permissible for one account to pay the expenses of another account so long as the records are kept. At a later date in writing up the books the accounts would be reconciled. As a consequence quite a lot of expenditures relating to Sopi Arts activities did not come up from Sopi Arts account alone. They were paid from Mr Worsley’s account, account John Kasaipwalova, KVDC account of Bank of South Pacific, from Bulubulu Trade Store account, from Kabisawali Pilaluma Trade Store account, from Gulf Artefacts account, from Kabisawali TaskForce account and quite considerable amounts from direct cash payments but were recorded in daily cash sheets of any of these accounts.

Some were made from Sulusulu Restaurant account, some from Kaweluwa Shop account, some from Ikwanemu Shop account, some from Kabisawali Engineering account, some from Milamala Tours account and some from Arts Trobriand account.

The K9500 cheque from Sopi Arts account to John Kasaipwalova account is a mechanical accounting transfer but this K9500 amount was to be paid into KVDC account for reconciling costs already incurred by the various accounts of subsidiaries of KVDC in meeting the expenses of Sopi Arts activities.”

I shall give his reasons for giving Michael Worsley cheques for K7,500 and K4,707 in his own words. He said:

“With respect to cheque for K7,500 and K4,707 paid from KVDC to Michael Worsley at the time when Government deported Worsley he was acting on our behalf to obtain goods and services under his own name and at the time of his departure KVDC settled accounts with Mr Worsley to enable him to meet the settlement of accounts which he obtained under his own name and likewise because of internal recording for auditing purposes the exchanges of cheques reflects this and this was for our own purposes.

All our arrangements of these accounts and cheques drawn on them were internal accounting arrangements relating to expenditure of Cultural Centre and Sopi Art Centre.”

Moi Avei is Chairman of the N.C.C. He was called as a prosecution witness at the committal proceedings. He was not called by the prosecution at the trial but offered to the defence for cross-examination. He said that he attended a festival in Kiriwina at the invitation of the accused and was impressed by what he saw but he is not in a position to know whether the money granted had been used. He was present at the meeting at which the grant for K15,000 was made. He says there was no stipulation that the money should be spent on buildings only and the grant was made on the basis of the Sopi paper (Exh. 29) only.

The accused has called a number of witnesses on his behalf. Of these Professor Beier and Mr Narokobi are members of the N.C.C. Both these witnesses speak very highly of the accused. Professor Beier described him as the most brilliant student he taught and stated that he has often been stimulated by his writings. At the request of the accused he accommodated two of accused’s students at his house. They are Meyakasa and Masawa. The accused also brought Nalubutau for the purpose of preparing the article on Trobriand Canoe Prows for tho magazine Gigibori.

Both Professor Beier and Mr Narokobi have stated the policy adopted by the N.C.C. in making grants and Mr Narokobi has produced a copy of the guidelines he has prepared for use by the N.C.C. But this part of their evidence is not really helpful. I am concerned to find out the directions given to the accused as to the use to which he should put the grant of K15,000. I am not concerned with the policy of the N.C.C. or its guidelines.

Another witness called by the defence is Mr Barry Holloway the Speaker of Parliament. He spoke glowingly of accused’s outstanding intellect, accused’s commitment to his people and the pioneering way in which accused has involved nationals in commercial activities.

The defence witness, Mr Gary Kildare, either made or helped to make a number of films on the Trobriand Islands. He is also aware of a film made by the B.B.C. But the film made by the B.B.C. was financed by the B.B.C. and the other films were financed by the Department of Information.

Nalubutau Beona and Pullitala Kalitoni are two chiefs on the Trobriand Islands who gave evidence for the accused. They confirmed that no one was paid for work done on Sopi Arts Centre. They are both directors of KVDC.

The accused has made an unsworn statement in his defence and in considering whether or not he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged on count 1 it is necessary that I direct myself correctly with regard to this statement. In Anthony David Frost and George Talbot HaleN80.html#_edn1027" title="">[mxxvii]¹ the proper direction tgivengiven to a jury when the accused has made an unsworn statement is stated in the following terms at p.291:

“...it is quite clear today that it ecome the practice and the proper practice for a judge not not necessarily to read out to the jury the statement made by the prisoner from the dock, but to remind them of it, to tell them that it is not sworn evidence which can be cross-examined to, but that nevertheless they can attach to it such weight as they think fit, and should take it into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution have made out their case so that they feel sure that the prisoner is guilty.”

In Samuel Peacock v. The KingN80.html#_edn1028" title="">[mxxviii]² Griffith C.J. said:

I shall consider accused’s statement in the context of the evidence as a whole and in the light of the two above mentioned cases.

I must consider first of all the basis upon which the grant was made. I find that the grant was made not only on the basis of the Sopi paper (Exh. 29) but also on the estimates the accused gave in writing in his letter dated 24th May, 1975 (Exh. 31) for the following reasons.

When the accused made an application for a grant for the Cultural Centre he had submitted a proposal in which the estimated expenditure had been detailed. Nevertheless, the minute, in which the grant of $20,000 was recorded, contains the following sentence: “Request detailed submission on proposed expenditure”. Minute 6.5 (Exh. 27). It would be surprising therefore if accused were not asked to submit details of proposed expenditure in respect of the grant of K15,000 for the Sopi Arts Centre. After receiving the grant for K15,000 the accused did not give a report on how the money had been spent despite repeated requests to do so and I doubt whether the accused would have given information about detailed proposed expenditure if he had not been asked to do so.

Mr Haugie was cross-examined at great length on this aspect by Mr Wall but he was adamant that the emphasis was on the construction of buildings. He said that there had to be a base or a centre, in other words, buildings, into which ideas could be fed before being filtered out.

Mr Haugie’s evidence as to the basis upon which the grant of K15,000 was made is in conflict with the evidence of Moi Avei. But I prefer the evidence of Mr Haugie. He is both Executive Officer and a member of the N.C.C. and is likely to remember better than Moi Avei what had been decided by the N.C.C.

The accused gave detailed estimates for buildings, equipment, scholarships and administrative costs. He said that the budgeted expenditure for Stage 2, covered the period for the next twelve months and included the council grant of K15,000 in the budgeted total expenditure of K37,400.

Very little, if any, money has been spent on Sopi Arts Centre. The clearance of the site and the construction of buildings cost nothing. The picnic area and parking area shown on the plan are non-existent. Two of the buildings have not been completed. When Tawagi went to the site it was deserted and overgrown with grass. So was it when Sub. Inspector Benjamin Matthew went there. The photographs he took show how overgrown with grass the whole place was. The place is about two miles from the village, the last half a mile is along a rough track inaccessible to motor vehicles. On my visit there I found the place desolate and depressing. I fail to see how any artist would find inspiration in such surroundings. There were no artists, no equipment, no staff. Either the noble ideas that inspired the building of Sopi Art Centre had been forgotten or it was a kind a of hoax all along. The accused got the site cleared and buildings erected at no cost and gave the impression that money had been spent, when, as will appear later the money was in fact Stolen.

It is clear from the evidence of Pakarai, Boneyei and Martin Molosi that the villagers who cleared the site and erected the buildings got no payment. The buildings are all made materials collected locally from the bush or brought from villages and cost nothing. No food or tobacco or transport was provided. Boneyei said that whom the materials were brought from villages they were borne on the men’s shoulders. I am aware that Martin Molosi said that KVDC provided transport to bring the villagers to the site and provided food but I do not believe Martin Molosi on these points. Boneyei said that the only thing he received was a tin of fish which had to be shared among all the workers. Pakarai and Boneyei received two documents headed “Kabisawali Bill of Exchange” purporting to give the villages to which the two belonged shares in the corporation. But although probably treasured by villagers as valuable documents they are pieces of paper worth nothing. The villagers are not registered shareholders. The materials ordered, such as copper sheets for copper beatings, from Territorial Plumbing Supplies and Services Pty. Ltd. costing K690.70 have not been paid for.

One of the claims made by the accused is that it was necessary to send students of Sopi Arts Centre to Port Moresby to expose them to new ideas and different influences. The list containing names of 37 students of the Sopi Arts Centre has been compared with the manifests of passengers from Losuia to Port Moresby and from Port Moresby to Losuia. For the period of 1st July 1975 to 31st December 1975 there were five tickets for Kasaipwalova, one for Tokulaeya and one for Tokwemai. None of these have been paid for. For the period 31st December 1975 to the present time Mr Goatley said that there were five names which appeared both on the list and the manifests. Those are K. Beona, Kasaipwalova, Tuyega, G. Beona and Sibunaku. (G. Beona’s name does not appear in the list Exh. Def.16 and the inclusion of his name appears to be a mistake). Of these one travelled on a travel warrant issued by the Public Service Board, one paid by cheque and the others paid cash. Assuming that these travelled as students of Sopi Arts Centre the amount spent on fares is minimal. Now the manifests with which the list has been compared are the manifests of Air Niugini, the only airline which has the scheduled route between Losuia and Port Moresby and one would have expected that if other students travelled they would have done so by Air Niugini. Mr Wall contends that they could have flown by charter or by other means and that the prosecution, on whom lies the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, must prove that the students did not travel by charter flights or some other means of transport. I do not agree. If students flew by charter or some other means of transport this would be a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. The proper form of direction where facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused is laid down in the case of Reg. v. GuirenN80.html#_edn1029" title="">[mxxix]³ in the following passage.81 p.812:

“...For on an indictment before a jury the question whether the accused ought to be convicted depends on whether the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the whf the evidence before it thit that tho accused is guilty. This question must be decided, whatever the accused says or omits to say about the facts, upon the basis that the prosecution from beginning to end carries the onus of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But none the less even in a criminal case it is legitimate to have regard to the fact that the accused has given no evidence or explanation or satisfactory explanation of Crown case as a consideration making the inference of guilt from the evidence for the prosecution less unsafe than it might otherwise possibly appear. Provided the jury is not directed that the onus is thrown on to the accused, it is not a misdirection to tell them that if the truth is not easily ascertainable by the Crown but is probably well known to the accused, then the fact that no explanation or answer is forthcoming, as might be expected if the truth were consistent with innocence, is a matter which the jury may properly consider. They have then to say whether in this state of the evidence they have a reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. If they have, they must acquit.”

Meyakasa and Masawa appear in the list of students, Exh. Def. 16. According to the evidence of Martin Molosi they were two of the students of Sopi Arts Centre who were brought to Port Moresby. This is supported by the evidence of Professor Beier who said that at accused’s request he provided accommodation for them at his own house for a period of 2½ months. Martin Molosi said that he drew cheques totalling $187.55 for the period 24th February, 1975, to 5th April, 1975, as food allowance for Meyakasa and Masawa. According to Martin Molosi they would have stayed in Port Moresby for just over a month. Assuming that they travelled to Port Moresby and Losuia and back by air the money spent on those two students would not be large.

In Exh. 31 the accused has provided for a sum of K6,000 for scholarships. In his statement the accused said he had arranged for a scholarship for Martin Molosi. It was not clear whether he was saying that he himself had provided funds from Sopi Arts Centre or whether he had arranged this scholarship from some other source. If accused had provided this scholarship to Martin Molosi from the funds of Sopi Arts Centre I would have expected Mr Wall to put this to Martin when he was being cross-examined but Mr Wall did not do so. Martin said he received no payment for any of the work he did for Sopi Arts Centre and if the accused had given him a scholarship I would have expected Martin Molosi to have said so. If the accused provided scholarships to any other students this would be a matter peculiarly within his knowledge.

Even on the assumption that the grant of K15,000 was made solely on the basis of the Sopi paper (Exh. 29) there is no evidence that the accused spent a great deal of money on the activities mentioned therein. The sworn evidence shows clearly that little or no money was spent on the activities of the Sopi Arts Centre. Having regard to this evidence the accused’s statement that he spent large sums of money from various accounts on Sopi Arts Centre and its activities cannot be believed.

Although there may be a contest between the prosecution and the defence as to the exact terms upon which the grant was made, namely, whether on the basis of the Sopi paper alone or on the basis of the Sopi paper and his letter dated 24th May, 1975, there can be little doubt that the purchase of a trade store can scarcely be considered a legitimate use to which the grant could be put. The accused says that the trade store was purchased to provide retailing facilities for the Trobriand Islanders and also as a reward for the work the villagers had done in the construction of the Cultural Centre and the Sopi Arts Centre. I fail to see how the purchase of a trade store would benefit the Trobriand Islanders more than it did when it was in the hands of Mrs Jill Holland. I would have thought that the culture symbolised by the trade store would be precisely the type of culture the accused would be eager to resist and not encourage by buying a trade store. Of course, it is possible, that the accused had bluffed the villagers into thinking that the trade store was now theirs. I believe this is what he did, in which case, it is evidence of fraudulent intention on his part. Pakarai and Boneyei said that they received no payment for the work they did for the accused at the Sopi Arts Centre. If the purchase of the trade store was payment for work done, as accused alleges, this should have been put to Pakarai and Boneyei in cross-examination. This was not done. Had they been cross-examined on this point I question whether they would have agreed that the purchase of the trade store could be looked upon as payment for the work they had done. According to the evidence of Mrs Jill Holland the accused had paid K500 in February, 1975, for the option to buy the goods, and he was to pay K4,500 when he felt able to go ahead with the purchase. The accused does not appear to have told the N.C.C. that it was his intention to use part of the money in payment for goods of a trade store. There is no mention of the trade store in Exh. 31. Even on the assumption that Exh. 31 was not the basis of the grant, failure on accused’s part to mention that he intended to use part of the grant money for the purchase of a trade store would go to his credit. If he was the honest and sincere person that some of the defence witnesses say he is he would at least have enquired if it was in order to purchase a trade store. But he did nothing of the sort. On the contrary, as soon as he received Haugie’s letter dated 27th May, 1975, he attached this letter to his application for an overdraft. He told the Manager that the grant he would be receiving was in the region of K15,000, and, on the strength of this letter, much before he received the cheque for K15,000, on the 29th May he got overdraft facilities to the extent of K5,000 and got a draft of K4,500 in favour of Jill Holland in payment for the goods from her store.

I come now to the giving of a cheque for K9,500 to Michael Worsley. This cheque was signed by Martin Molosi. According to the evidence of Martin Molosi the accused presented this cheque already made out and asked Molosi to sign. The accused was one of the signatories to this account. He had signed other cheques. Why did he not sign this cheque? One can only assume, having regard to his subsequent conduct, that he had a dishonest intention.

Ignoring the cheque from Michael Worsley which was dishonoured, a cheque from Michael Worsley for K9,635.86 was credited to the Sopi Arts Centre account, Bank of South Pacific on 24th September 1975. If the cheque for K9,500 to Michael Worsley was a loan one gets the impression that he repaid it on the 24th September, 1975. But on 22nd September, 1975, the accused transferred from the Sopi Arts Centre account the sum of K9,500 to his own personal account or John Kasaipwalova account with the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation together with a cheque for K2,000 drawn by Bulubulu Store making a total of K11,500. This appears as a credit entry dated 22nd September, 1975, in the ledger sheets Exh. 20. On the same day the accused transferred the sum of K10,000 from his personal account with Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation to the KVDC account with Bank of South Pacific. On the same day he gave Michael Worsley a cheque for K4,707.43 drawn on this last account. On 19th September, 1975, he had given Michael Worsley a cheque for K7,500 drawn on the same account, putting this account in the red. The payment of K10,000 from his own personal account brought the account into credit. Michael Worsley’s first cheque for K9,635.86 was dishonoured. It was only after Worsley was given a cheque for K4,707.43 that Worsley was able to give another cheque for K9,635.86 without it being dishonoured. Now the accused transferred the sum of K9,500 from the Sopi Arts Centre account to his own personal account with Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation. He transferred the sum of K10,000 from his own personal account to KVDC account, Bank of South Pacific, and gave a cheque to Michael Worsley for K4,707.43 drawn on the last account all on the same day, namely, the 22nd September, 1975. Previously to that he had given Michael Worsley a cheque for K7,000 drawn on KVDC account with the Bank of South Pacific. It appears therefore that Michael Worsley paid Sopi Arts Centre K9,635.86 on the 24th September, 1975, with money which came from the Sopi Arts Centre by a circuitous route and that the transfer of various sums from account to account was done in order to conceal this fact.

The accused has said that he gave Michael Worsley a cheque for K9,500 because Michael Worsley was in Port Moresby while he himself was in Kiriwina and the money was for the purposes of financing the activities of the Sopi Arts Centre. What were these activities in Port Moresby for which such large sums were required? In Kiriwina itself there was nothing going on, and, for what little had been done no money had been spent. People who cleared the site and built the huts had not been paid, the artists who had produced works of art had not been paid. In Port Moresby the company from whom materials had been ordered had not been paid. However keen the accused may have been to expose the Trobriand Islands artist to new ideas and influences in Port Moresby, there was hardly any traffic between Port Moresby and Kiriwina of the 37 students enrolled in the Sopi Arts School, and, the fares of those few who had travelled to Port Moresby had not been paid and is outstanding to this day. In the light of the sworn evidence it is scarcely credible that the cheque for K9,500 went to Worsley for the purpose of financing the activities of Sopi Arts Centre in Port Moresby. The grant money of K15,000 had been paid into the Sopi Arts Centre account on 15th July, 1975. This helped to liquidate the overdraft facilities granted for the payment of the draft for K4,500 to Jill Holland. K4,500 of the grant money had been spent even before it was received, and, three days’ after its receipt with the giving of the cheque for K9,500 to Worsley the grant was practically exhausted.

I find that the transfer of funds from account to account was done with a dishonest intention probably in order to conceal the fact that the sum of K9,500 was going out of Sopi Arts Centre account into Worsley’s pockets. The accused’s explanation as to the reason why sums of money were transferred from account to account is puerile and not credible. On 24th September, 1975, Michael Worsley paid into the Sopi Arts Centre account the sum of K9,635.86. This is a fact peculiarly within accused’s knowledge of which he has given no explanation.

The grant of K15,000 had been made for the Sopi Art Centre. The facts established by the evidence show that little or no money had been spent on Sopi Art Centre. Little or no weight can be attached to accused’s unsworn statement from the dock that money from various accounts had been spent on Sopi Art Centre. The defence that he used the grant of K15,000 to reimburse himself for money he had already spent is at variance with his statement in his letter dated 24th May 1975, that as the first stage of Sopi Art Centre had been completed, the grant of K15,000 would be spent for the second stage in the next twelve months. Clearly no money had been spent by the accused which needed reimbursement.

Whether the money had been given on the basis of the Sopi paper alone or the Sopi paper and the letter dated 24th May, 1975, by no stretch of the imagination can a trade store be considered an artistic or cultural activity. And as I do not believe that the cheque for K9,500 had been given to Mr Worsley for the purposes of financing the activities of the Sopi Arts Centre it was given for a purpose other than any of the purposes mentioned in the Sopi paper or the letter dated 24th May, 1975. The money had not been used for the purpose for which it had been directed. K4,500 had been used for the purchase of goods in a trade store and K9,500 diverted into the pockets of Worsley - both of them with intent to defraud, and, therefore, the sum of K14,000 had been stolen by the accused.

It may be pertinent to point out that Sopi Arts School was registered as a business name in the name of the accused. The grant of K15,000 was made to Sopi Art School and the cheque for K15,000 made in favour of the accused.

Before concluding my judgment I might add that there is no merit in Mr Wall’s submission that there is no proof that the great money belonged to the Government of Papua New Guinea. There is enough in the evidence of Haugie to indicate that the funds which the N.C.C. disbursed were Government funds.

In the course of my judgment I have referred to various matters which I found were peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. About these matters the accused has either given no explanation or given no satisfactory explanation. The question whether the accused is guilty or not guilty must be considered having regard to the evidence as a whole. This question must be decided whatever the accused says or omits to say about the facts. The onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rests upon the prosecution from beginning to end and never shifts to the accused. But if the truth is not easily ascertainable by the State but is probably well known to the accused, then if there is no explanation or satisfactory explanation from the accused, which one would expect if the truth were consistent with accused’s innocence, it is a matter which the judge may properly consider as making the inference of guilt from the evidence adduced by the prosecution less unsafe than might otherwise appear: Reg. v. GuirenN80.html#_edn1030" title="">[mxxx]⁴ (s.

I am satisfied bied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused on count 1. I find him guilty of stealing from the Government of Papua New Guine sum of K14,000 and convict him.

Solicitor for the the State: K.B. Egan, Public Prosecutor

Counsel: B.M. Ryan

Solicitor for the Accused: W.J. Andrew, A/Public Solicitor

Counsel: C.F. Wall

N80.html#_ednref1027" title="">[mxxvii]^{48 Cr. App.R.284}

N80#_ednref1028" title="">[mxxviii]^{[1911] HCA 66; (1911-12) 13 C.L.R. 619 p.640/641}

N80.html#_ednref1029" title="">[mxxix] ^{(1962) 79 W.N. (NSW) 811 at p.812}

N80.html#_ednref1030" title="">[mxxx] ^{(1962) 79 W.N.(N.S.W.) 811}