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

State v Karl [2000] PGNC 22; N1978 (15 June 2000)

N1978

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the National Court of Justice]

CR No. of 1998

Between:

THE STATE

And:

PETER RASTA KARL
Prisoner

KUNDIAWA: KIRRIWOM, J
2000: 12th & 15th June

Criminal Law - Sentence - Break, Enter and Steal - Guilty plea - Full restitution - Concurrent sentence to 14 months previously imposed being imposed for being unlawfully in prison - Criminal Code, s.395

Counsels:
Mr F. Kuvi for the State
Mr M. Apie’e for the Prisoner

15th June 2000

KIRRIWOM, J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to breaking, entering and stealing on the night of 2nd October 1998 from the dwelling house of one Theodore Muriki the Police Station Commander of Kundiawa Police. The offence is created by section 395 of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. Close to all the items stolen were returned by this prisoner the next day. The prisoner was in the company of other youths when they did this trouble by entering the house through the back door after forcing it open.

Break, enter and steal cases are ordinarily, since the amendment to the District Court Act, giving the District Court a concurrent jurisdiction on some indictable offences with the National Court on election by the Public Prosecutor, dealt with at the District Court. This one came before the National Court which I presume because of some elements of threat against an occupant inside the house who had a knife held against his neck. Circumstances of armed robbery is clearly evident in this case which is probably why it was proceeded with by way of indictment in the National Court. But the prisoner pleaded guilty to break enter and steal and I can only punish him for that.

I note from the record that the prisoner has had a short three month stint in prison in 1987 for similar offence and whilst in custody he escaped several times, one of which he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. These convictions would have been over 10 years ago. I will not place much weight on this conviction for purpose of punishment with respect to this current offence.

In relation to this particular incident, the prisoner was also charged with having in possession housebreaking implements. He was dealt with by the District Court and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment which lapsed on 18/3/00.

In mitigation I note the Prisoner’s plea of guilty, cooperation with the Police when interviewed, and expression of remorse. Furthermore, all properties were recovered by or returned to the owners. The fact that they were returned by the prisoner himself weighs heavily in his favour as far as his acceptance of moral blame worthiness is concerned. This adds weight to his plea of guilty as it can be construed or taken as an act of contrition by the wrong-doer.

In all the circumstances I sentenced the prisoner to 18 months imprisonment in hard labour. This sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence of 14 months imposed by the District Court previously for being in possession of house-breaking implements as they are all related to the same transaction. This means that the period of 14 months already spent in custody shall be taken into account when calculating the term of sentence to be served on this warrant for the break, enter and steal.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor