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

State v Levipaja [1997] PGNC 94; N1601 (6 August 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1601

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. NO. 789 OF 1997
THE STATE
V
ARIJOPA LEVIPAJA

Goroka

Sawong J
5-6 August 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Breaking, Entering & Stealing - Plea of Guilty - Sentence - Breaking, Entering & Stealing Solar Panels for repeater station - Sentence - Custodial sentence.

Counsel

C Ashton-Lewis for the State

F Terra for the Accused

SENTENCING

6 August 1997

SAWONG J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to a charge upon indictment that he on or about 30 March 1997 at Yangkunte, Henganofi, broke and entered a store and committed the crime of stealing in it. The charge was laid pursuant to S 398 (a) (i) of the Criminal Code.

The circumstances of the commission of the crime is as follows.

At about 11 o’clock in the evening of 30 March 1997, the accused who comes from Tigunte village, went to the PTC repeater station located at Yangkunte.

At that time, he was carrying a hammer with him. When he arrived at the repeater station, he proceeded to break into a storeroom located at the site. He smashed off the two padlocks. Subsequently he was joined by several villagers, who assisted him and stole ten solar panels, two torches, and two padlocks, valued at K5,075.00. Soon after they stole these goods and as they were on their way out, he was confronted by the security men and villagers, who apprehended him and handed him over to the Police.

The prisoner is aged about 28 years old. He is a married man with two (2) young children. He is a first offender and has pleaded guilty. He is a villager.

It has been submitted on his behalf that because of his personal antecedents, his prior good character, his plea of guilty to a serious crime, that he is first offender, his co-operation with the Police and readily making admissions, a wholly suspended sentence would be appropriate.

I consider that the starting point in considering the appropriate sentence is the penalty provision contained in the Code.

Section 398 provides the penalty of up to a maximum of fourteen (14) years imprisonment.

I consider that the legislature considered this particular offence as serious enough warranting the imposition of a lengthy penal servitude. Further, in my judgement, the offence of breaking, entering and stealing is serious and prevalent offence.

In this instance, the evidence shows that the accused and his fellow villagers were angry with PTC for not paying them their demand. In other words, they were not happy with what PTC had paid them as compensation for the use of their land on which the repeater station was located. They therefore decided that they would not only enter the property but also steal those goods which they did.

Whilst I accept the mitigating factors which I have mentioned earlier, I do not accept the submission that in the circumstances of this care a wholly suspended is appropriate. I consider that such a sentence would be or is inappropriate.

In the circumstances, I consider that an appropriate sentence must be imposed not only as a deterrent to the prisoner personally but also to others would be offenders who have a like mind. I consider that the Court has a duty to protect the interest of public at large and public property as oppose to the interest and welfare of an individual in these types of cases.

In the circumstances, you are sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment in hard labour. I deduct the period of four (4) months you have spent in custody as a remander, leaving a balance of two (2) years eight (8) months, imprisonment with hard labour.

I order that you serve your term at Bundaira CIS.

Lawyers for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyers for the Accused: Public Solicitor