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

State v Wanda [1997] PGNC 78; N1600 (27 June 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1600

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 458 OF 1997
THE STATE
v
PAUL WANDA

Wewak

Batari AJ
27 June 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Abduction of girl under age of 18 years - Girl few months short of 18 years - Boy-girl relationship - Mitigating factors - Plea of guilty - Sentenced to rising of Court.

Cases Cited:

No cases were cited.

Sentence:

On a plea of guilty to one count of abduction, the following sentence was delivered.

Counsel:

J Wala for the State

F Pitpit for the Accused

27 June 1997

BATARI AJ: Paul Wandllowing your your conviction on abduction, you now appear before me for sentence.

I have heard that on 16 January, 1997 at Kaup Village in the Angoram Sub District of East Sepik Provincu arranged with Lilian Wand Wanda, a girl under the age of 18 years to meet you at a designated location where she would be collecting coconuts with two other female companions. You took her against her pher parents knowledge or consent. She stayed at yoace until ttil the parents located her after some two weeks.

This case had features of aggravation. Your lawye ther at pto diso diss dissuade me from those factors and urged that I accept your offence as noas non-violent and involved two young adulth mutual interests and love for each in a relationship which had existed for some time.&#1e. Twhen you took her away onay on 16 January, 1997 it followed your mutual arrangement and that she came voluntarily. You have alsdered a letteretter purportsent to you by the victim. In the le the victim ctim ctim spoke of her affectionate feelings towards a ‘Patrick’.&#I do not know whether you are also known as Patrick. 160; I give youbenefit of t of doubt on this and also on those other matters raised by your lawyer because prosecution did not object when the question was raised.

You are aged 25 years, unmarried andllager. This is your your firstncefence. You were said to be tungerunger brother of the victim’s father. If so, then yo the paternaternal uncle of the victim. You would be more or ler bher blood relative. It was hr, revealed ur Latr Lathat you were adoe adopted into the victim’s father’s family and you grew up asup as part of them.

You ought to bemed orself. For For their love, car sand support they gavy gave for your upbringing and welfare, you repaid them by courting the victim at their back. What you dicommonly referreferred to as “tanim plet” in the pidgin language and by its very implications is disgraceful and humiliating. Anyone who commits sufencefence within a close family relationship brings shame and causes much grief and anger within the family because the trust and respect is broken.

I note on the other hand that the v was only short of 18 yearsyears at the time of the offence and your fault apparently was your failure to get approval from the victim’s parents when you took her away. Under s. 220 of riminal Coal Code, you are liable to be sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment. You have spent (5) months nths in pre-trial custody. I think that is sufficiena penalty for your of in all the circumstances.

You are sentenced to the rising of the Court.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutors