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

State v Eki [2005] PGNC 185; N3387 (22 December 2005)

N3387

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1297, 1361 & 1362 of 2004

THE STATE

-V-

AISI EKI, FABIAN LONGA & DARIUS MOIHE

Vanimo: Kandakasi, J.
2005: 14th and 22nd December

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Stealing following looting and rioting - Break, enter of and stealing from dwelling house – Number of personal items stolen – Partial recovery – Property stolen worth between K4,180.00 and K4,630.00 – Separate indictments against each person - Guilty plea by first time offenders – varying sentences between 3 months and 5 years imposed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Receiving stolen property – Property stolen following looting and rioting - Break, enter of and stealing from dwelling house – Number of personal items stolen – Partial recovery – Property stolen worth between K4,180.00 – Prisoner disposing of property – Belated plea to return property without any evidence as to its current condition and value - Guilty plea by first time offender - Sentence of 3 years imposed.

Cases cited:
The State v. Bill Saun Daniel CR 292 of 2005 (Judgment delivered 21/2/05).
The State v. Robert Kawin (24/12/01) N2167.
Seo Ross v. The State (30/04/99) SC605.
The State v. Michael Kamipe (11/9/96) N1471.
The State v. Timothy Tio (21/05/02) N2265
The State v. Allan Nareti and Amstrong Kupe (26/03/04) N2582
The State v Rocky Walesa Peraki (18/09/03) N2463.
The State v. Lucas Yovura (29/04/03) N2366.
The State v Isidor Kaream (11/05/04) N2610.
The State v. Henry Mapi (03/07/98) N1936.
The State v James Hilux Palu (25/03/04) N2585.
Acting Public Prosecutor v. Don Hale (27/08/98) SC564.
The State v. Irox Winston (21/09/00) N2304.
Edmund Gima v The State & Siune Arnold v The State (03/10/03) SC730.

Counsel:
J. Wala, for the State.
G. Korei, for the Prisoner.

22 December, 2005

1. KANDAKASI J: The State presented three separate indictments against each of you respectively under s. 372 (1) and (5), s.372 (1) and s.410 (1) of the Criminal Code but all arising out of the same incident or same set of facts. The factual and generally the legal considerations before arriving at a decision on your respective sentences will essentially be the same. Hence the decision to give this joint judgment. I will of course, digress to addressing each of the matters separately when appropriate.

2. Mr. Aisi Eki, the State charged you with one charge of stealing a video deck player worth K450.00. Mr. Fabian Longa, the State similarly charged you with one charge of stealing a hi-fi radio stereo system (radio) valued at K4, 180.00. Finally Mr. Darius Moihe, the State charged you with one charge of receiving a stolen property namely, the item stolen by Mr. Fabian Longa, being the radio.

The Relevant Facts

3. From the deposition and the facts put to you during your respective arraignments, are clearly these. Between 12:00 noon and 2:00 pm on 18th February 2004, there was a big unauthorized demonstration here in Vanimo. The demonstration was over the assaulting of a Chris Deklin, one of your fellow villagers from Lido by a group of drunkards from the East Sepik Province at West Deco within the township of Vanimo. People from the West and East Coasts and some settlers in Vanimo, marched into the Works Compound after assembling earlier and forcefully breaking into a Timothy Aguwi and a Thomas Babo’s houses and looted the houses of their contents and thereafter, setting the house on fire.

4. Both of you, Aisi Eki and Fabian Longa were part of the people that marched into the Works Compound and broke into, looted and burnt Timothy and Thomas’ houses. Aisi Eki, you stole a video deck player from Thomas’ house, while Fabian Longa, you stole a radio from Timothy’s house. After having stolen the radio, Fabian Longa, you gave it to Darius Moihe. Darius Moihe, you had the stolen property delivered by ship to Lae where your sister is. Although, some of the properties stolen from Timothy and Thomas’ houses were recovered, it is not clear whether you returned the video deck, Aisi Eki, you stole. As for the radio, attempts to have the property recovered from both you, Fabian and Darius failed as Darius had it shipped to Lae to his sister.

Your Allocatus and Address on Sentence

5. Aisi Eki and Fabian Longa, you both left your right to address the Court on sentence to your lawyer. Darius, you did likewise but that was after informing the Court that this was your first ever offence, you have learned something out of it and asked for the mercy of the Court. You concluded with a request for more time for you to have the radio returned to its owner.

6. Mr. Korei of counsel for all of you pointed out that, you were all first time offenders. He also reminded the Court that, all of you pleaded guilty to the respective charges against you. Further, he informed the Court that you all come from Lido Village here in the Sandaun Province just outside the Township of Vanimo. Your counsel also informed the Court that, Aisi Eki, you are aged 22 and married with 2 children. You completed grade 10 at the Don Bosco High School. You live a subsistence style of dwelling.

7. Likewise, counsel also informed the Court that, Fabian Longa, you are 24 years old and married with 2 children. You too live a subsistence style of dwelling. As for Darius Moihe, your counsel informed the Court that, you are 18 years old and single. You completed grade 10 at the Don Bosco High School. Like Aisi and Fabian, you live a subsistence style of dwelling.

8. In all of your cases, your counsel reminded the Court of the respective maximum penalties for each of the charges, you been respectively charged with. He then urged the Court to take into account you all being first time offenders and that, you all have pleaded guilty. He then asked for a suspended sentence for all of you but more so for Darius to arrange for a return of the radio or money in lieu thereof. Otherwise, he left it all to the Court to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

9. Mr. Wala of counsel for the State submitted that, the Court should note that you were part of a group of people taking the law into their own hands, becoming police, judge, jury and executioners all at the same time and helping themselves to two innocent people’s personal properties. He therefore, asked for sentences designed to deter others from committing this kind of offence in the way you have committed them.

10. A small complication occurred particularly when, counsel for the State proceeded to make submissions for penalty in relation to the charge against Fabian Longa. This had to do with the fact that, counsel for the State cited s. 372 (1) only when, the value of the property stolen, K4,180.00 attracts an application of subsection (5) as well. This is significant because under subsection (1), the maximum penalty prescribed is 5 years, whereas a charge also under subsection (5), carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, having regard to the value of the property stolen. Your counsel pointed out that, this Court is at no liberty to proceed to consider sentence under subsection (5) but only under subsection (1). He cited no authority in support of his submissions. This is a repeat of what happened in the case of The State v. Bill Saun Daniel.[1] I thus, repeat what I said in that case at page 8:

"As far as I know, an accused person pleads either guilty or not guilty to the essential elements of the charge presented against him or her. The relevant indictment in the case of an indictable offence or in the information in the case of a summary offence, must therefore disclose each of the elements. Lay J., highlighted this in his judgment in the case of The State v. Saul Ogerem,[2] when he said:

‘The wording of the indictment has not alleged a charge of any offence and it has omitted particulars necessary to inform the accused person of the nature of the charge. Thus it has prevented the Defendant from knowing and pleading to each of the elements of the charge. In relation to the submission that the short facts on arraignment can substitute for the mandatory particulars not included in the indictment, one only has to read the words of s557 of the Code. A Defendant does not plead to the short facts, he pleads to the indictment.’

An indictment or information gets presented based on facts disclosing an offence known to law, which the prosecution through the Court are usually put to an accused during his or her arraignment. There is no requirement for the State to specify in the indictment or the facts put to an accused during his or arraignment, the particular law under which he or she is charged, although this is usually done in most cases.

In your case, the indictment amongst others specifically pleads the fact that you were an employee of PNG Power Ltd and that you misappropriated a sum of K2,000.00. These facts or elements of the offence were specifically put to you both in the indictment and the brief facts during your arraignment. You then pleaded guilty to the charge against you with these elements constituting part of the charge or indictment against you. I therefore find that the lack of accurately specifying specifically subsection (2) (b) and (d) of Section 383A of the Code is of no serious consequence."

11. "The situation is precisely the same here as it was in that case. The indictment and facts put to you, Fabian Longa, do disclose and cover the elements of a dwelling house and the actual value of the property stolen as exceeding K4,000.00. Accordingly, I am equally of the view that, the failure to specifically cite subsection (5) is of no consequence as the Court arraigned you and you pleaded guilty to the elements of your stealing from a dwelling house and the value of the stolen property was put at K4,180.00. Accordingly, I will proceed to consider sentence not only under subsection (1) but also under subsection (5) as well.

The Offence and Sentencing Tariffs

(i) Offence of Stealing

12. Section 372 (1) provides for the offence of stealing while the rest of that section sets out the various circumstances and places out of which, an offender could commit the offence proscribed.

13. Neither Counsel were able to assist me with any case on point. Proceeding therefore unassisted, I note that, I have published a number of judgments dealing with your kind of cases. One of them is my judgment in The State v. Robert Kawin.[3] That was a case of stealing brought under subsection (1) instead of subsection 10 of s. 372 for two counts of stealing by forgery in a breach of a trust situation. In sentencing, the prisoner on a plea of guilty to a cumulative sentence of 2 years, I noted that, there were no sentencing guidelines and I tried to formulate one in these terms at pp. 5- 6:

"In line with the accepted principle that, the maximum prescribe sentence in any offence should be reserved for the worse category of the offence under consideration, I am of the view that the maximum of 3 years should be reserved for the worse category of stealing under s. 372 (1). A worse case of stealing would be one that might have factors like, the total value or the actual amounts of money stolen falls just short of K1, 000.00, thereby escaping an application of the provisions of subsection 10. It would also be a worse case if say an element of a breach of trust whether legal or a defector kind of trust not caught by any of the other subsections in s. 372 exists and the offence is committed in furtherance of an illegal activity or another offence.

At the end of the scale would be simple cases of stealing, such as, pocket pickings, or someone leaving some valuable item mistakenly at a place and another person steals it with full knowledge of its owner. Stealing in such a situation should attract a sentence of a few months say about 3 to 4 months. Then there would be cases in between. These might be cases in which say the amount of money or the value of item stolen is small but the offence is committed in pursuance of an illegal activity or another offence. In this category might be cases where the amount of money or value of item stolen is substantial but not necessarily up to K1, 000.00. In such cases the sentence could range from more than 4 months and closer to the maximum prescribed sentence of 3 years.

Of course a guilty plea by a first time offender, or a young offender could reduced the kind of sentence suggested. The need to do that as been made clear in a large number of cases though in the context of other offences as in the case Gimble v The State [1988 – 89] PNGLR 271, by the Supreme Court at page 275. The above suggestion is only put forward as a guide in the absence of any other guideline to the contrary. A judge may impose a sentence outside what is suggested, provided there is a good reason to depart from the suggested guideline."

14. Since that decision, I came across a number of other cases, I was not able to find before or at the time of my judgment. The first was the Supreme Court judgment in Seo Ross v. The State.[4] In that case, Seo Ross pleaded guilty to two counts of stealing under s.372 (5) of the Code. The National Court imposed a sentence of two years for each count and ordered him to serve them cumulatively. It did so after noting that, the prisoner was a first time offender and that, the properties stolen were recovered. On appeal against that sentence, the Supreme Court held that, the National Court did not err in its judgment. Instead, it agreed with the trial judge that, it was a serious offence because, it involved a breach of trust by a security officer.

15. The second case I came across was, the judgment of Sawong J., in The State v. Michael Kamipe,[5] where the prisoner was given 4 years concurrent with a sentence of 6 years for hijacking an airplane and involving large sums of money.

16. However, as I noted in The State v. Timothy Tio,[6] these cases do not clearly provide us with any guideline for sentencing for any or all of the offences under s.372 of the Code. In the circumstances, I considered what I said in the The State v. Robert Kawin,[7] as a useful guide, for adoption and application with the necessary modifications for an offence under subsection 10. I then proceeded to state a number of principles as emerging from these cases.

17. These were, firstly, the maximum prescribed penalty is not automatic. Instead, it is for the worse type of the offence under consideration. Secondly, guilty pleas, and the offender being a first time young offender and the existence of such good factors operate in favour of sentences lower than the prescribed maximum. Thirdly, a recovery of the properties stolen may operate as a factor in mitigation of an offender whilst on the other hand if the properties stolen are substantial and or not recovered, may attract a higher sentence. Fourthly, prevalence and effect of the offence against the victim and the community or society as a whole is an important factor for consideration.

18. I discussed and applied these principles in my subsequent judgment in The State v. Allan Nareti and Amstrong Kupe (26/03/04) N2582. In that case, the prisoners stole a sum K10,000.00 from a drunkard here in Vanimo. I imposed a fully suspended sentence of 5 years on strict conditions against the prisoners in the face of a well-balanced pre-sentence report supporting such a sentence. The prisoners pleaded guilty, they were both first time offenders, who were prepared to undergo a community based sentence.

19. In The State v. Timothy Tio,[8] I imposed a sentence of 5 years custodial sentence against a security guard who stole a chain saw valued at about K8,000.00. That was on a guilty plea by a first time offender. In The State v. Robert Kawin,[9] I imposed a sentence of 2 years cumulative for stealing a sum of K50.00 under one charge and a further K2,000.00 under another charge. Earlier on in The State v Rocky Walesa Peraki,[10] Jalina J., imposed a sentence of 6 years and 6 months for stealing a government vehicle but recovered with a substantial repair bill.

Sentence in Your Case

20. Aisi Eki and Fabian Longa, both of you committed the offence of stealing from a dwelling house. This attracts the application of subsection (5). The maximum prescribed penalty is 7 years. This is subject to s. 19 of the Code. In order that I arrive at an appropriate sentence for you, I need to apply with the necessary modifications the guidelines, I discussed in The State v. Robert Kawin,[11] as improved upon in The State v. Timothy Tio.[12]

21. I note that there are number of factors both for and against you. Noting firstly the factors against you, I note first that, you were part of an illegal assembly that proceed to a demonstration against the East Sepik people then living here at Vanimo. Your group of people did not seek the requisite prior or advanced approval for the demonstration from the police in the Province.

22. Secondly, your group of people then proceeded to break, enter and completely loot the contents of two dwelling houses. Thereafter, your group burnt down one of the houses. No doubt, that must have brought upon the owners of the house substantial loss and suffering, both materially and emotionally. Going by the value of what you two personally stole from the houses, I am of the view that, the total value of all that might have been stolen from the houses, could have exceeded the amounts you personally stole. I am of the view that s.7 and s.8 of the Code applies to make you principle offenders.

23. From the above two factors, it is already clear that, you committed the offence of stealing in furtherance of or in the course of committing other offences. This alone calls for a sterner punishment per the The State v. Robert Kawin,[13] and The State v. Timothy Tio[14] guidelines.

24. Thirdly, your above unlawful activities took place within the precincts of the Township of Vanimo. You and your group of people showed no respect for law and order and the need to respect one another and the other person’s property. Within the Township of Vanimo, there are representatives of the National Government, there is a Provincial Government, the District Court, the police and others to assist in the peaceful resolution of disputes. Your group of people did not turn to any of these authorities to look into and resolve that which caused you to act in the way your group acted.

25. Fourthly, following on from the third factor, you appeared to have acted in retaliation of an alleged assault on one of your Villagers. There is no evidence to indicate that, the victims of your offence are the ones that committed the assault and that, the authorities in Vanimo were not or could deal with it in one way or another. Even if the victims of your offence did do the assault, the police and the courts are there to deal with them. Under our Constitution a person who is accused of having committed an offence, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, according to law. What you did amounted to playing the role of police, judge, jury and executioner all at the same time and totally divorced from the system that is in place, against two innocent men and their families.

26. Commissions of both serious and minor offences in the various provincial and district centres is becoming a common place. Vanimo used to be a very peaceful little Town. Recently, this has changed for the worse with killings even in the Courtroom, by a mob. This alone calls for firm deterrent sentences so that, this kind of behaviour can cease and restore the peace and calm Vanimo and the country as a whole once enjoyed. Such a sentence will help people to respect the rule of law, the individual rights and interests of our citizens and our guests alike and encourage a use of the lawful system already existing to help resolve all human and societal conflicts peacefully.

27. Finally, I note that, neither of you shown any genuine remorse for the commission of your offences against the victim. This is evidenced by the lack of any genuine apology being communicated to the victims of your offences, coupled with a prompt return of the items you stole from them and some compensation for the house that was burnt down. To date some of the items stolen remain with you or your agents.

28. Against the above serious aggravating factors, there are only two mitigating factors in your favour. The first is the fact that, both of you are first time offenders. This means you have not being in trouble with the law before. This is therefore a stepping out of an otherwise good character and standing in the community. Secondly, you both pleaded guilty to the respective charges against you. This saved the State more time and money it could have outlaid to get you convicted. It also saved the Court, the time that it could have taken to hear and come to a decision on your guilt or innocence.

29. In addition, I note and take into account your personal and family backgrounds as put to me by your lawyer. However, I note that, these cannot be taken into account in your favour by way of mitigation. This is because it is now clear law that an offender should first consider his personal and family backgrounds and needs before committing an offence.[15]

30. Weighing the factors for and against you, I note that the factors in aggravation far outweigh those in your mitigation. The need for a deterrent sentence for the kind of offences you committed in the particular way in which you committed is high on the agenda. In my view, a sentence up to the maximum prescribed sentence is warranted as I find this to be a worse case of stealing. However, noting your guilty plea and being first time offenders, I am minded to impose a sentence lower than the prescribed maximum. I consider a sentence of 5 years imprisonment in hard labour will serve the desired purpose of deterring others in this province in particular and the country as a whole from engaging in the kind of conduct you got yourself into. However, appreciating the difference in the value of the properties each of you stole from the innocent victims, I consider a sentence lower than 5 years would be appropriate for you, Aisi Eki. Accordingly, I further reduce your sentence to 3 years and 6 months.

31. Of the head sentences of 5 years and 3 years and 6 months respectively, I order a deduction of the time you have already spent in custody whilst waiting for your trial and now sentence. You will serve the balance of your term in hard labour at the Vanimo Correction Services.

(ii) Receiving Stolen Property

32. Turning now to the case against you, Darius Moihe, I note that the same considerations as regards the factors for and against Aisi Eki and Fabian Longa equally apply to you. All I need to do is to consider the kind of sentence being imposed for the offence of receiving stolen property.

33. The State presented the indictment against you under s.410 (1) (a) of the Code. That provision reads in relevant parts as follows:

"410. Receiving stolen property, etc.

(1) A person who receives any thing that has been obtained by means of—

(a) any act constituting an indictable offence; or

(b) ...

knowing it to have been so obtained, is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(2) If the offence by means of which the thing was obtained is a crime, the offender is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

34. Counsel were not able to refer my attention to any case on point. My limited research took me only to my judgment in the matter of The State v James Hilux Palu.[16] In that case, counsel also failed to assist me with any authority. I therefore took guidance from my judgment in The State v. Robert Kawin.[17] As already noted above, that was a case of stealing brought under subsection (1) instead of subsection (10) of s. 372 of Code for two counts of stealing by forgery in a breach of a trust situation. In sentencing the prisoner on a plea of guilty to a cumulative sentence of 2 years, I noted that, there were no sentencing guidelines and I tried to formulate one. In so doing, I stated that, in accordance with the well-accepted practice in our jurisdiction, the maximum prescribed sentence should be reserved for the worse category of the offence of stealing. A worse case of stealing would be one that might have factors like, the total value or the actual amounts of money stolen, falling just short of K1,000.00, thereby escaping an application of the provisions of subsection 10. It would also be a worse case if say, an element of a breach of trust whether legal or a defector kind of trust, not caught by any of the other subsections in s. 372 exists, and the offence is committed in furtherance of an illegal activity or another offence.

35. At the same time, I observed that, at the end of the scale would be a simple case of stealing, such as, pocket picking, or someone leaving some valuable item mistakenly at a place and another person steals it with full knowledge of its owner. Stealing in such a situation should attract a sentence of about 3 to 4 months.

36. I further stated that, there would be cases falling in between these two extremes. Cases falling in this category would be cases where for example, the amount of money or the value of item stolen is small but the offence is committed in pursuance of an illegal activity or another offence. There might also be cases where the amount of money or value of item stolen is substantial but not necessarily up to K1,000.00. In such cases, the sentence could range from more than 4 months and closer to the maximum prescribed sentence of 3 years.

37. Finally, I said a guilty plea by a first time offender or a young offender could reduce the kind of sentence suggested. I observed in that regard that, the need to do that, has been made clear in a large number of cases though in the context of other offences as in the case of Gimble v The State.[18]

38. I did not intend that, what I suggested in terms of the above should be rigid or mandatory. Instead, I made it clear that, these were suggestions put forward as a guide in the absence of any other guideline to the contrary. A judge could therefore, impose a sentence outside the suggested guidelines provided; there is a good reason to do that.

39. I considered what I suggested in the foregoing, relevant so I adopted and applied them in The State v James Hilux Palu[19] with the necessary modifications. Then going by those guidelines, I noted in that case, it was a simple case of receiving stolen property with nothing more, with the value of the stolen property standing at K100.00. I went on to state that such a case ought to be distinguished from a case in which the recipient has encouraged directly or indirectly the stealing of the property at the first place so he could benefit from it, or that money or value of the property stolen is substantial or that the value of the stolen property has diminished, or has been damaged or has been used up.

40. In the end, I did not find the case then before me falling in the worse category of receiving stolen property. Instead, I found that the case fell somewhere in the lower end of the scale. Accordingly, I decided to impose a sentence of 1 year 2 months, taking into account both the factors for and against the prisoner, including his guilty plea and being a first time offender and the value for the stolen property. At the time of his sentencing, the prisoner had already spent that much time in prison. Therefore, I sentenced him to the rising of the Court.

Sentence in Your Case

41. In your case, I have already noted and found that, the same factors that exist for and against Aisi Eki and Fabian Longa apply to you, only with the variation that you did not steal the property. You only received it knowing very well that, it was stolen from the victims. You also refused to have the property returned to its owner or pay over to him the value of the property, stated as K4,180.00. Now faced with a possible higher sentence, you asked for more time to arrange for a return of the property. Yet you produced no evidence confirming that the property is in the same condition as it was when it was stolen from its owner.

42. The offence was committed in February 2004. Almost a year has just passed, you have still not returned the property to its rightful and legal owner. Instead, the property has been applied to your own use and I believe it continues to do so now if it is still in a working condition. Given the period of time that has lapsed, I assume that the property has been subjected to wear and tear.

43. Having found that the factors in aggravation far outweighs your guilty plea, being a first time offender, I consider a strong deterrent sentence is called for. Bearing in mind that your offence is one of receiving stolen property and not necessarily the one that constituted part of the looting party breaking the victims’ houses and stealing the various properties, I consider a sentence a little below that of Aisi Eki and Fabian Longa would be appropriate. Accordingly, I impose against you a sentence of 3 years.

In All Cases

44. I have given consideration to orders for restitution and suspension of either the whole or part of each of your sentences. I have however decided against doing that for two main reasons. Firstly, I consider a custodial sentence is appropriate to send a strong deterrent message to people in Lido Village and the Township of Vanimo and elsewhere in the country who are intent on committing the kind of offences you have all committed in the way you have is unacceptable and ought not to be repeated. The message is also that, if anyone repeats this kind of conduct, the law will deal with him or her decisively and sternly. Secondly, there is no means assessment and or pre-sentence report speaking in support of an order for restitution and for suspension of either the whole or part of each of your sentences.

45. In Acting Public Prosecutor v. Don Hale,[20] the Supreme Court held that there can be no suspension of sentence without the support of a pre-sentence report. The Supreme Court also held that young offenders up to age 19 could get their sentences suspended with the support of a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases. In The State v. Irox Winston,[21] I followed the Supreme Court decision and held that:

"...[I]f the Court is minded to give a lenient sentence because of tender age or other good mitigating factors, it must first have before it a pre-sentence report supporting such a sentence. This is because criminal sentencing is a community response to an offence and has to reflect the community’s view of the kind of sentence an offender should receive. Without such a report supporting either the suspension of a sentence or the imposition of a lenient sentence, a Court can not arrive at such a sentence."

46. Subsequently, the Supreme Court endorsed these views and reaffirmed the need for a pre-sentence report in its judgment in Edmund Gima v The State & Siune Arnold v The State.[22]

47. This ultimately means, all of you will have to serve your respective sentences of 3 years and 6 months, 5 years and 3 years respectively in hard labour. Of these respective head sentences, I order that the time you have already spent in custody awaiting your trials and now your sentence be deducted. That will leave you with the balance to serve in hard labour at the Vanimo Correction Services. A warrant of commitment in those terms shall issue forthwith.

____________________
The Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State
The Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Accused

^[1] CR 292 of 2005, a decision I delivered, 21st December 2005.
^[2] (27/10/04) N2780.
^[3] (24/12/01) N2167.
^[4] (30/04/99) SC605.
^[5] (11/9/96) N1471.
^[6](21/05/02) N2265.
^[7] Opt Cit note 2.
^[8]Opt Cit note 5.
^[9] Opt Cit note 2.
^[10] (18/09/03) N2463.
^[11] Opt Cit note 2.
^[12]Opt Cit note 5.
^[13] Opt Cit note 2.
^[14]Opt Cit note 5.
^[15]See The State v. Lucas Yovura (29/04/03) N2366; The State v Isidor Kaream (11/05/04) N2610 and The State v. Henry Mapi (03/07/98) N1936 for similar views and approaches.
^[16] (25/03/04) N2585.
^[17] Opt. Cit. note 2.
^[18] [1988-89] PNGLR 271, by the Supreme Court at page 275.
^[19] Opt. Cit. note 15.
^[20] 27/08/98) SC564.
^[21] (21/09/00) N2304.
^[22] (03/10/03) SC730.