N4232

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CR NOS 251 OF 2010 &
1455, 1457, 1433, 1444, 1447, 235, 287,
78, 79, 1459, 1431, 76, 77, 239, 237 & 235 OF 2009

THE STATE

V

WILLIAM NANUA KAPRIS (1st accused)
JACOB PENINGI OKIMBARI (2nd accused)
COLLIN MASILO (3rd accused)
BONNY SOLOMON (4th accused)
JOHNNY GUMAIRA (5th accused)
DAMIEN INANEI (6th accused)
KITO ASO (7th accused)
JOYCE MAIMA (8th accused)
KIA WARREN (9th accused)
BOBBY SELAN (10th accused)
REUBEN MICAH (11th accused)
ISABELLA KIVARE (12th accused)
ELVIS BALA AKA (13th accused)
PETER ALLAN POPO (14th accused)

Madang: Cannings J

2010: 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 August,
7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 21, 23 September,
5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 October,
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 November,
7, 9, 13, 14, 15 December,
2011: 22 March

VERDICTS

CRIMINAL LAW – trial – 14 accused charged with various charges on three indictments – 1st indictment: one charge of armed robbery and one charge of conspiracy against all 14 accused – 2nd indictment: 13 charges of kidnapping and 14 charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty against nine accused – 3rd indictment: one charge of receiving stolen property against 12 accused.

The State presented three indictments against 14 accused, which related to the armed robbery of a bank and the kidnapping and unlawful detention of bank staff and their family members. The first indictment charged each of the accused with one count of armed robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The second indictment charged nine of them with 13 counts of kidnapping and 14 counts of unlawful deprivation of liberty. The third indictment charged 12 of them with receiving stolen property. All accused pleaded not guilty to all charges against them. It was an agreed fact that the robbery had occurred and the offences of kidnapping and unlawful deprivation of liberty had apparently been committed in connection with it. However, it was contended by the defence that the alleged kidnap victims had colluded with those who had actually committed the robbery.

Held:

(1)	Of the 14 accused charged on the first indictment, 12 accused were found guilty of armed robbery and conspiracy, and two accused were found not guilty of armed robbery and conspiracy. 

(2)	Of the nine accused charged on the second indictment, seven were found guilty of 13 counts each of kidnapping for ransom and 14 counts each of unlawful deprivation of liberty, and two accused were found not guilty of all counts.

(3)	Of the 12 accused charged on the third indictment, four were found guilty of receiving stolen property, and eight accused were found not guilty of that charge.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Abraham Saka v The State (2003) SC719
Biwa Geta v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 153
Devlyn David v The State (2006) SC881
Jimmy Ono v The State (2002) SC698
John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115
Paulus Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498
R v Amo and Amura [1963] PNGLR 22
Taiya Balua v The State (2006) SC878
The State v Alpen Popo [1978] PNGLR 18
The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035
The State v Boria Hanaio, Bula Hanaio & Timothy Komu (2007) N4012
The State v Francis Laumadava [1994] PNGLR 291
The State v Iori Veraga (2005) N2849
The State v Kusap Kei Kuya [1983] PNGLR 263
The State v Raphael Walimini (2004) N2627
The State v Titeva Fineko [1978] PNGLR 262
The State v Wama Dua, Daniel Bema & John Goga (2005) N2854
The State v William Kapris & Ors (2010) N4139

Dates

The events referred to in this judgment occurred in 2008 unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations appear in the judgment:

2IC – second-in-charge
BSP – Bank South Pacific
CCTV – closed-circuit television
Chf – Chief
CID – Criminal Investigations Division
Const – Constable
CR – Criminal file reference
Dep – Deputy
Det – Detective
Insp – Inspector
km – kilometre
MOCIT – Major Organised Crime Intelligence Team
N – National Court judgment
NRL – National Rugby League
No – number
Ors – Others
PMV – public motor vehicle
PNG – Papua New Guinea
PNGLR – Papua New Guinea Law Reports
PPC – Provincial Police Commander
Reg – registration
RSP – receiving stolen property
s – Section
SC – Supreme Court judgment
SDA – Seventh-Day Adventist
Sgt – Sergeant
SMK – Salim Moni Kwik
Snr – senior
Supt – Superintendent
Tech – Technical
UDL – unlawful deprivation of liberty
v – versus
WNB – West New Britain 

TRIAL

This was the trial of 14 accused charged, variously, with conspiracy and armed robbery, kidnapping, unlawful deprivation of liberty and receiving stolen property.

Counsel

P Kaluwin, A Kupmain & M Pil for the State
D L Dotaona for the 1st accused
M Mwawesi for the 2nd, 7th, 12th & 13th accused
A E Raymond for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th & 14th accused
S L Daniels for the 8th, 10th & 11th accused

22 March, 2011

1. CANNINGS J: On the morning of Saturday 5 July 2008 an armed robbery took place at the Madang branch of Bank South Pacific. The State alleges that, at Lae and Madang from 24 June to 5 July, the 14 accused conspired with each other and other persons to commit the robbery. The State alleges that on the evening of Friday 4 July and in the early morning of Saturday 5 July the bank's manager and two other bank officers and members of their families were kidnapped and taken to a hotel 40 km out of town, where they were detained at gunpoint by some of the accused. The State alleges that the bank officers were forced by some accused to go to the bank later on Saturday morning and open the strongroom and cash compartments within it, from which K2,407,315.35 cash was stolen. In the course of the robbery another bank officer was detained. The State alleges that the accused who directly committed the robbery joined with those who detained the bank officers and their families and went to Lae later on Saturday where over the next few days they met with the other accused who had remained in Lae and distributed the proceeds of the robbery.

2. None of the accused denies that the offence of armed robbery was committed at Madang on 5 July 2008. They all deny, however, actually committing the offence or enabling or aiding those who committed it.

3.	The State presented three indictments:

•	The first indictment charged each of the 14 accused with one count of armed robbenry under Section 386 of the Criminal Code and one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery under Section 515 of the Criminal Code.

•	The second indictment charged nine of them with 13 counts of kidnapping under Section 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and 14 counts of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Section 355(a) of the Criminal Code.

•	The third indictment charged 12 of them with receiving stolen property under Section 410(1) of the Criminal Code.

4. The 1st accused pleaded guilty, on arraignment, to some charges but later with the leave of the court changed his plea to not guilty to all counts (oral ruling 10.11.10). All other accused pleaded not guilty to all charges on arraignment and did not change their pleas. All accused therefore pleaded not guilty to all charges.

5. This judgment provides reasons for the court's verdict on each accused in relation to each charge. It is set out as follows:

PART A – THE EVIDENCE

PART B – FINDINGS OF FACT

PART C – THE OFFENCES AND THEIR ELEMENTS

PART D – CHARGES FACED BY EACH ACCUSED

PART E – DETERMINATION OF VERDICTS FOR EACH ACCUSED

PART F – SUMMARY OF VERDICTS

PART A: THE EVIDENCE

6. Sixty witnesses gave oral evidence for the State and 110 exhibits were admitted into evidence, including witness statements by some persons who did not give oral testimony.

7. For the defence, eight of the accused gave sworn evidence and six other defence witnesses gave evidence in the course of seven voir dire hearings. After the close of the State's case and rejection by the court of no-case submissions by all accused (oral ruling, 09.12.10):

•	none of the accused gave sworn evidence;

•	12 remained silent; and

•	two made unsworn statements from the dock.

8. Only one defence witness gave evidence in the trial proper.

9. The evidence is summarised in the following order:

1	Oral testimony of the 60 State witnesses.

2	Evidence of State witnesses who did not give oral testimony but signed written witness statements.

3	Voir dire hearings.

4	Statements of the accused admitted into evidence.

5	Vehicles referred to in the evidence.

6	Other significant evidence for the State.

7	Unsworn statements from the dock.

8	Other defence evidence.

1	ORAL TESTIMONY OF 60 STATE WITNESSES

10. The following table lists witnesses in the order that they gave evidence, summarises their evidence and categorises it according to the facts to which it relates. Those marked with an asterisk (*) also made witness statements, which have been admitted into evidence and assessed along with their oral testimony.

11. The evidence is categorised according to the findings of fact that are set out later in the judgment:

(1)	Events in Lae prior to the robbery: late June to 4 July.

(2)	Events in Madang around the time of the robbery: 2 to 5 July.

(3)	Kidnapping, detention and robbery in Madang: 4 and 5 July.

(4)	Events in Lae soon after the robbery: 5, 6 and 7 July.

(5)	Events after 7 July.

TABLE 1: STATE WITNESSES WHO GAVE ORAL TESTIMONY

No	Witness	Description	Evidence	Category
	
1	Timon Kataka *
	Finschhafen area resident – villager (male adult)	He knows 1st accused William Nanua Kapris (related to him) – William and other men arrived by boat unexpectedly at his village in the Finschhafen area in late June – helped get them to Lae and stayed with them over a two-week period – received K6,000.00 from robbery.	(1) & (4)	
2	Ezekiel John Mai *
	Lae resident – Two Mile (male adult)	12th accused, Isabella Kivare, stayed at his house – also 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, stayed there during June.	(1) & (4)	
3	Jane Ezekiel *
	Lae resident – Two Mile – daughter of State witness No 2 (female youth) 	12th accused, Isabella Kivare, stayed at her house in June – observed money being shared amongst various people at her (the witness's) grandfather's house at 7 Block on Monday 7 July.	(1) & (4)	
4	Ronny Jimbu
	Lae resident – Geks Compound (male adult)	A dinghy arrived at the beach near his house on Tuesday 24 June – looked after it for two weeks.	(1) & (4)	
5	Dama 
Somi
	Madang resident – teacher, Gum Primary School (male adult)	He knows 6th accused, Damien Inanei (fellow schoolteacher) – observed movement of vehicles around Damien's residence on Thursday and Friday, 3 and 4 July.	(2)	
6	Gideon Suivio * 
	Lae resident – Gannet St, Cassowary Road – bus manager
(male adult) 	He knows 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris (related to him) – helped William with fuel and transport in Lae, in June and July. 	(1) & (4)	
7	Jerry Beglana
	Lae resident – Premium Hire Car manager (male adult) 	He knows 11th accused, Reuben Micah (through Seventh-Day Adventist Church) – hired three Premium Hire Car vehicles to Reuben, late June-early July – Reuben drove one (white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507) to Madang, where it broke down.	(1)	& (4)	
8	Betty 
Kig
	Madang resident – teacher, Gum Primary School
(female adult)	She knows 6th accused, Damien Inanei (fellow schoolteacher) – observed movement of vehicles around Damien's residence, on Thursday and Friday, 3 and 4 July.	(2)	
9	Paul 
Kasai
	Madang resident – motor mechanic (male adult)	He knows 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari (previously fixed a vehicle for him), who came to his house on the night of Thursday 4 July for assistance in repairing a white Toyota Hilux that had broken down on the Lae-Madang Highway, close to Madang town.	(2)	
10	Jeffery 
Sana *
	Madang resident – motor mechanic (male adult)	He knows 6th accused, Damien Inanei (friend), who came to his workplace (Ela Motors, Madang) on Friday 4 July for assistance in repairing a white Toyota Hilux that had broken down and was at Damien's place at Gum Primary.	(2)	
11	Palei Ralewa *
	Madang resident – auto electrician (male adult)	He knows 11th accused, Reuben Micah (related to him), who came to his house on the morning of Saturday 5 July for assistance in repairing a white Toyota Hilux that had broken down and was at a teacher's residence at Gum Primary.	(2)	
12	Raymond Parangkei
	Madang resident – auto manager (male adult) 	He knows 11th accused, Reuben Micah (related to him), who stayed at his house on the night of Friday 4 July, having driven from Lae – Reuben had a white Toyota Hilux, which had broken down, towed to his house on the morning of Saturday 5 July – Reuben left early Sunday morning, 6 July.	(2)	
13	Richard Tatut
	Madang resident – Lama Rent-a-Car manager (male adult)	He rented out a vehicle, gold Toyota Hilux, CAO 582, on afternoon of Saturday 5 July to a person who signed as Mark Male – 11th accused, Reuben Micah, connected to vehicle.	(2)	
14	Andrew Kivung
	Madang resident – motor mechanic, Kekam Rent-a-Car (male adult)	He rented out two Kekam Rent-a-Car vehicles: dark blue sedan, BCF 807, hired by a man called Damien, on Wednesday 2 July; green Toyota 10-seater, BCA 247, hired by a person unknown on Thursday 3 July.	(2)	
15	Moses 
Siat
	Madang resident – security guard, Malolo Lodge (male adult)	He saw the men who booked two rooms at Malolo Lodge on Wednesday 3 July – saw the PMV bus, "PORO".	(2)	
16	Jennifer Passingan *
	Madang resident – Tellers Supervisor, BSP Madang (female adult) 	She was kidnapped, with family members, from her house at 3.00 am on Saturday 5 July – detained at Malolo Lodge – held keys to cash compartments in bank strongroom – taken to bank on Saturday morning – returned to hotel and further detained.	(3)	
17	Steven Wapikwari
	Madang resident – Team Leader, Customer Services & Enquiries, BSP Madang (male adult) 	He was kidnapped late on night of Friday 4 July – taken to Malolo Lodge and detained there – taken to bank on Saturday morning. 	(3)	
18	Joseph Passingan *
	Madang resident – husband of Jennifer Passingan (male adult)	He was kidnapped, with family members, from his house at 3.00 am on Saturday 5 July – detained at Malolo Lodge throughout day.	(3)	
19	Mathias Manowo
	Madang resident – BSP Madang branch manager (male adult)	He was kidnapped, with family, at 7.00 pm Friday 4 July – detained at Malolo Lodge for 24 hours – taken to bank on Saturday morning.	(3)	
20	Top 
Songo *
	Madang resident – single mother (female adult)	She knows 11th accused, Reuben Micah (related to him), who came to residence of State witness No 12, Raymond Parangkei, on Friday 4 and Saturday 5 July – Reuben towed a white Toyota Hilux that had broken down at Gum.	(2)	
21	Paul Salumbia *
	Madang resident –Electronic Banking Supervisor, BSP Madang 
(male adult)	He went to the bank early on morning of Saturday 5 July when the robbery took place – then abducted and detained at Malolo Lodge with other bank officers – left Malolo late on night of Saturday 5 July, found his way to town and raised alarm with police.	(3)	
22	Ian 
Wamo *
	Lae resident – university graduate (male adult)	He knows 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari (friend) who came to his house on afternoon of Sunday 6 July, with other men, including William Nanua Kapris, to count money – K100,000.00 cash was left with him.	(4)	
23	Dominic Manua
	Lae resident – Lae District Treasurer (male adult)	He knows 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris and 6th accused, Damien Inanei (related to them) who came to his house at Lae Tech on Saturday night, 5 July in Ford Ranger, dual-cab – drove around Lae during the night, drinking alcohol with William.	(4)	
24	Adam Orosombo
	Lae resident – East Taraka – metal fabricator (male adult) 	He knows 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari and 9th accused, Kia Warren (former schoolmates) and 3rd accused, Collin Masilo (relative, shares residence with him) – Jacob came to workshop looking for Collin in last week of June – Collin gave him a note in September, just before he was arrested, to give to Kia.	 (1) & (5)	
25	Alfred Kaindu
	Lae resident – Voco Point – accountant (male adult)	He knows 9th accused, Kia Warren (former neighbour) – made a witness statement, under duress, for police, which was false (court refused to admit it into evidence).	(4)	
26	Benjamin Manua
	Lae resident – university graduate – son of Dominic Manua (male adult)	He knows 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris (relative), 3rd accused, Collin Masilo (friend) and 6th accused, Damien Inanei (relative) – drove around Lae during the night of Saturday 5 July, drinking alcohol with his father, William and Collin; also met Damien that night.	(4)	
27	Richard Uvia
	Lae resident – Telikom clerk (male adult)	He knows 10th accused, Bobby Selan (friend), who he helped to send cash, by SMK, through Post PNG, to Port Moresby, on 10 and 14 July.	(5)	
28	Ruth Kombe
	Lae resident – Eagle block – accounts clerk, JKT Lim Trading (female adult)	She knows 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira (relative), who gave a suitcase to his sister, Nancy Gumaira (State witness No 33), which was then given to this witness (Ruth Kombe) to look after – Ruth took it to her house, buried it in the bush near her house, then tried to dig it up, but police intervened.	 (5)	
29	Freeman Savin
	Madang resident – Newtown – self-employed carpenter (male adult)	He was a suspect in the BSP Madang robbery – made a witness statement, under duress, for police, which was false [court refused to admit it into evidence].	(2)	
30	Fotha Zamang
	Lae resident – Bogo, near Igam Barracks (female adult)	She knows 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira (relative) – the suitcase that was given to State witness No 28, Ruth Kombe, was kept in her (Fotha's) house for a short time before she instructed her daughter, Dorcas, to bury it – later confiscated by police.	(5)	
31	Ray 
Ban, Sgt
	Police Officer – Madang CID (male adult)	He conducted two interviews of the 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo – both refused admission following voir dire (The State v Kapris (2010) N4139). Corroborator of interview of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, Wednesday 31 December (record of interview refused admission, oral ruling 31.12.08).	(5)	
32	George Avali, Snr Const
	Police officer – National Crimes Intelligence Unit, Lae (male adult)	He apprehended 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, early on Monday 7 July and confiscated K28,733.00 cash in his possession – took a statement from him that night (admitted into evidence as exhibit 22). Involved in obtaining confessional statement from 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, on Thursday 14 September (refused admission into evidence, oral ruling, 05.11.10). Charging officer for 9th accused, Kia Warren, 11th accused, Reuben Micah, 12th accused, Isabella Kivare and 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka.	(4) & (5)	
33	Nancy Gumaira
	Lae resident –Kamkumu – accounts clerk, Plumtrade (female adult)	She knows 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira (siblings) – her daughter, State witness No 60, Junet Giliva, told her on Monday 11 August that Johnny had been around and left a suitcase of clothes – the suitcase later given to her sister, State witness No 28, Ruth Kombe.	(5)	
34	Akinu Elijah
	Lae resident –Manager, Akel Hire Car (male adult)	He rented out Ford Ranger, BBX 786, to 8th accused, Joyce Maima, late on the afternoon of Saturday 5 July – she returned it 11.00 am, next day.	(4)	
35	Rumba Arafi
	Lae resident – Telikom linesman (male adult)	He knows 10th accused, Bobby Selan (acquaintance) – helped State witness No 27, Richard Uvia, send Bobby's cash, via SMK, to Port Moresby on 10 July.	(5)	
36	Frank 
Vauta *
	Lae resident – driver, National Catering Services (male adult)	He was at Phil's Motel, Lae on the nights of Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 July – drove around Lae, drinking alcohol at various locations – met two men, Stanna and Peter, at Phil's Motel – was given K3,000.00 cash – apprehended by police on Monday morning 7 July.	(4)	
37	James 
Luan, Snr Sgt
	Police officer – Lae (male adult)	He was involved in early morning raid and search of residence of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, on Tuesday 12 August: 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira arrested and K4,600.00 cash, with BSP Madang seals, seized (admitted into evidence). Also involved in police operation on Friday 15 August when camouflage suitcase containing K129,500.00 cash, with BSP Madang seals, seized at Igam block (admitted into evidence).	(5)	
38	Kisofe Ahuma, 1st Const	Police officer – Forensic Branch, Lae (male adult)	He was involved in early morning raid and search of residence of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, on Tuesday 12 August: found K4,600.00 cash in Joyce's bedroom (admitted into evidence).	(5)	
39	Chris Kunyanban Snr Insp
	Police officer – CID, Lae (male adult)	He led the police team involved in arrest of 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo and seizure of cash, on Monday 7 July and led early morning raid and search of residence of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, on Tuesday 12 August. Also led police operations on Friday 15 August at Igam (recovery of suitcase containing K129,500.00 cash) and Tuesday 4 November at Ramu (apprehension of Jacob Peningi Okimbari and seizure of K6,122.00 cash, admitted into evidence). Led operation that led to reapprehension of Jacob in East Sepik Province in December. 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, surrendered to him at East Taraka, Lae on Sunday 14 September.	(5)	
40	Manu Pulei, Const
	Police officer – CID, Lae (male adult)	He knows 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira (friend) – was involved in raid and search of residence of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, on Tuesday 12 August. Involved in apprehension of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, at Ramu on Tuesday 4 November – K6,122.00 found in his possession (admitted into evidence). Knows 3rd accused, Collin Masilo (friend) – involved in obtaining confessional statement on Thursday 18 September (refused admission into evidence, oral ruling 05.11.10).	(5)	
41	Allan Loloea, Sgt *
	Police officer –CID, Lae (male adult)	He was involved in formal police interview of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, Monday 17 November (admitted into evidence, oral ruling 18.10.10). Upon instructions from Snr Insp Kunyanban, took photos of: Geks Compound river mouth; residence of State witness No 6, Gideon Suivio, Gannett St, Lae; Mazda utility, LAN 922; Toyota Landcruiser, ZGC 125; residence of State witness No 22, Ian Wamo, Finch Street, Lae; vehicle occupied by 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, when arrested on 7 July, Mitsubishi Lancer, LAP 538; residence of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, Gannet St, Lae; camouflage suitcase and K129,500.00 cash recovered at Igam; Toyota Hilux, LAU 507; Honda CRV, BBW 546; residence of Nancy Gumaira, Kamkumu, Lae; Mitsubishi, LAQ 333; place at Igam where K129,500.00 cash found; electronic equipment and other items seized at residence of 11th accused, Reuben Micah, Four Mile, Lae; Toyota Hilux, LAR 996; Toyota Hilux, LAU 337; K6,122.00 cash and other items seized at residence of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, at Ramu, 4 November; police blue camouflage uniforms and other items seized from various suspects.	(5)	
42	Leo Kaikas, Snr Const	Police officer – CID, Madang (male adult)	He obtained a confessional statement from 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, on Wednesday 31 December (refused admission into evidence, oral ruling 19.10.10).	(5)	
43	Chris Miria, 1st Const	Police officer – Prosecutions Branch, Lae (male adult)	He was involved in apprehension of 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, Eagle St, Lae, on Monday 7 July and seizure of cash in the possession of the accused (admitted into evidence).	(4)	
44	Noel Tumpi, 1st Const	Police officer – CID, Lae (male adult)	He conducted interviews of 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, on Thursday 21 August at Lae and on Wednesday 22 October at Madang (refused admission into evidence, oral ruling, 19.10.10).	(5)	
45	Russell Egimbari, Chf Sgt	Police officer – CID, Lae (male adult)	He was involved in interview of 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, Wednesday 21 August (refused admission into evidence, oral ruling 19.10.10). Obtained confessional statement from 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, on Thursday 18 September (refused admission into evidence, 05.11.10).	(5)	
46	Steven Yalamu, Snr Sgt	Police officer – CID, Madang (male adult)	He became aware of robbery between 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm on Saturday 5 July and was involved in immediate investigations. Involved in formal police interview of 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, Wednesday 22 October.	(5)	
47	Peter Guinness, Supt	Police officer – PPC, Morobe (male adult)	He appointed the police team for the BSP Madang robbery investigation but took no active part in investigation.	(5)	
48	John Brutnall
	BSP National Operations Manager (male adult)	K161,800.00 cash (proceeds of BSP robbery) handed over to him by police in Port Moresby on Tuesday 2 October.	(5)	
49	Wilsen Tapi, Chf Sgt *
	Police officer – Forensics Branch, Lae (male adult)	He lifted fingerprints from green Toyota Landcruiser, BCA 247, in Lae, on Tuesday 8 October – but found no comparison in police records with any suspects.	(5)	
50	Jeffery Gellam, 1st Const
	Police officer – Mobile Squad, Lae (male adult)	He was involved in a police operation that took 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, from Lae to Ramu on Monday 14 July – retrieved plastic bag containing police uniforms (all this evidence was struck out for being obtained unfairly, oral ruling 02.11.10).	(5)	
51	Robert Volo, Sgt
	Police officer – MOCIT, Boroko (male adult)	He videotaped a statement by 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, at Bomana Jail, on Thursday 11 February 2010 (refused admission into evidence, oral ruling, 09.11.10).	(5)	
52	Lawrence Walep *
	Manager, Malolo Lodge (male adult)	Three men came to the Lodge on the evening of Thursday 3 July and booked two rooms for Friday and Saturday, 4 and 5 July. One of them he identified as 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari.	(1) & (3)	
53	Uluman Hanlau, Chf Sgt *	Police officer – Forensic Branch, Madang (male adult)	He lifted fingerprints from various Madang locations, eg the bank, the bank manager's residence, Malolo Lodge – linked them to 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris.	(5)	
54	Ben 
Narina *	Madang resident – PMV driver (male adult)	He drove the PMV bus, "PORO", from Madang town to Malolo Lodge with three passengers – now unable to identify them.	(2)	
55	Elisha Tange, Sgt *
	Police officer – Forensic Branch, Madang (male adult)	He took numerous photographs for purposes of police investigation, including BSP Madang, Malolo Lodge, residence of 6th accused, Damien Inanei, and of State witnesses in and around Madang town.	(5)	
56	Terry Apollos, 
Sgt *
	Police officer – MOCIT, Boroko (male adult)	He led police operation that resulted in apprehension of 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, and other suspects, in Kwikila area, Central Province, 1.30 am on Thursday 17 July – shot him four times in the leg to disarm him. Later that day he arrested another suspect, Tamara Player Tomscoll, at Mirigini Avenue, Boroko and seized cash (with BSP tags) and firearms from her house.	(5)	
57	Remie Jogioba, Snr Const
	Police officer – MOCIT, Boroko (male adult)	He was involved in operation that resulted in apprehension of 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, and other suspects, in Kwikila area, Central Province, 1.30 am on Thursday 17 July – he is the exhibit officer who marked the cash and other items seized from the residence of Tamara Tomscoll.	(5)	
58	Mathew Giaut, 1st Const
	Police officer – Dog Squad, Madang (male adult)	He knows 4th accused, Bonny Solomon (neighbour, Newtown, Madang) – involved in his apprehension at Unitech, Lae on Monday 7 July – K1,250.00 cash found in his possession.	(4)	
59	Rimur Bolar, Sgt
	Police officer – CID, Madang (male adult) 	He knows 4th accused, Bonny Solomon (police work, Madang) – involved in his apprehension at Unitech, Lae on Monday 7 July – K1,250.00 cash found in his possession.	(4)	
60	Junet Guliva
	Lae resident (female adult) 	She knows 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira (her uncle), who on Monday 11 August gave her a camouflage suitcase to keep at her house (she was living with her mother, State witness No 33, Nancy Gumaira) – later gave it to her aunty, State witness No 28, Ruth Kombe.	(5)	

2	WRITTEN WITNESS STATEMENTS

12. These are summarised in the following table, in the order they were admitted into evidence. They all relate to category (3) facts: kidnapping, detention and robbery.

TABLE 2: EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES WHO DID NOT GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY

No	Name	Description	Evidence 	Category
	
1	Bobola Passingan	Madang resident – son of State witness Nos 16 & 18, Jennifer and Joseph Passingan
(male child)	Was asleep when criminals entered their house at 3.00 am on Saturday 5 July – saw the criminals point guns at his mother and father – was taken with other family members to Malolo Lodge, room 3 – criminals asked his mother for the key to the bank but she could not find it – the criminals then took his parents away, while some criminals remained in the room – they came back after a long time.	(3)	
2	Grace Manowo	Madang resident – wife of State witness No 19, Mathias Manowo
(female adult)	Was at home at 9.30 pm on Friday 4 July when her husband arrived, accompanied by five fully-armed men in police mobile squad camouflage uniform, in green Toyota Landcruiser – ordered into Landcruiser, with her mother and two sons – taken to Malolo Lodge – kept under armed guard – criminals threatened to kill two of her children if their demands were not met.	(1)	
3	Bethel Manowo	Madang resident – son of State witness No 19, Mathias Manowo (male child, age 11)	Was at home between 9.00 and 10.00 pm on Friday 4 July when his father arrived, accompanied by five fully-armed men in police mobile squad camouflage uniform, in green Toyota Landcruiser – ordered into Landcruiser, with his mother, grandmother and baby brother – taken to Malolo Lodge – kept under armed guard.	(3)	
4	Alphonse Passingan	Madang resident – son of State witness Nos 16 & 18, Jennifer and Joseph Passingan 
(male child, age 12)	Was asleep when criminals entered their house at 3.00 am on Saturday 5 July – saw the criminals point guns at his mother and father – was taken with other family members to Malolo Lodge, room 3 – criminals asked his mother for the key to the bank but she could not find it – the criminals then took his parents away, while some criminals remained in the room – they came back after a long time.	(3)	
5	Cathy Kawage Passingan	Madang resident – niece of State witness Nos 16 & 18, Jennifer and Joseph Passingan 
(female adult)	Was asleep when criminals entered their house at 3.00 am on Saturday 5 July – was taken with other family members to Malolo Lodge, room 3 – criminals asked her aunty for the key to the bank but she could not find it – the criminals then took her uncle and aunty away, while some criminals remained in the room – they came back after a long time.	(3)	

3	VOIR DIRE EVIDENCE

13. The State tendered a number of confessional statements and records of interview to which objection was taken by the defence. Each objection necessitated a voir dire (a hearing within the trial, pronounced 'vwah deer') to determine whether the documents should be admitted into evidence. Seven voir dire hearings were held to determine admissibility of nine contentious records of interview or confessional statements; there being two hearings which dealt with two documents each.

14. All but one of the objections were sustained, resulting in eight contentious records of interview or confessional statements being refused admission into evidence. However, the oral testimony given in each voir dire is evidence in the trial unless excluded by the court (R v Amo and Amura [1963] PNGLR 22; The State v Kusap Kei Kuya [1983] PNGLR 263; The State v Raphael Walimini (2004) N2627). The evidence in voir dire hearings that resulted in documents being refused admission is summarised in the next table. The sole record of interview to which an unsuccessful objection was taken (record of interview, dated 17 November 2008, of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari) is summarised in table 4.

TABLE 3: VOIR DIRE HEARINGS THAT RESULTED IN DOCUMENTS BEING REFUSED ADMISSION

No	Contentious document	Grounds of objection	Evidence	Outcome	
1	1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, 
videotaped statement, 11.02.10 	Involuntariness
Unfairness	For the defence: 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, gave evidence of the conditions in which he had been detained.

For the State: State witness No 51, Sgt Robert Volo, gave evidence of the circumstances in which the accused's statement was videotaped.	Refused admission, oral ruling, 09.11.10	
2	2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, confessional statement, 11.11.08	Involuntariness
Unfairness	For the defence: 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, gave evidence of being shot and apprehended at Ramu on Tuesday 4 November; Dr Manna Ario, of Angau Hospital, gave evidence of the accused's medical condition; Renata Yayabu, a Public Solicitor lawyer, gave evidence of her observations of the accused when she visited him in the Lae police lock-up.

For the State: State witness No 39, Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban, gave evidence of leading the police operation aimed at apprehending the accused, who was then a suspect. State witness No 40, Const Manu Pulei, gave evidence of shooting the accused in the course of apprehending him at Ramu – he also seized K6,122.00 cash from the accused's house.	Refused admission, oral ruling, 18.10.10	
3	2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, confessional statement, 31.12.08	Involuntariness
Unfairness	For the defence: 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, gave evidence of his escape from Jomba police lock-up, Madang, in early December – he went to Wewak, where he was re-apprehended on Sunday 28 December – claimed that he was assaulted and treated inhumanely.

For the State: State witness No 39, Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban, gave evidence of reapprehension of the accused. State witness No 31, Sgt Ray Ban, gave evidence of taking a confessional statement from the accused on Wednesday 31 December, as did State witness No 42, Snr Const Leo Kaikas.	Refused admission, oral ruling, 19.10.10	
4	3rd accused, Collin Masilo, confessional statement, 18.09.08	Involuntariness
Unfairness	For the defence: 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, gave evidence of surrendering to police (after hiding in the bush for two months) in Lae on Sunday 14 September, with the assistance of 10th accused, Bobby Selan – claimed to have been threatened, mistreated and denied access to a lawyer before agreeing to sign a false statement prepared by the police. The accused's adopted father, Marcus Anjava, gave evidence about police raids of his house in East Taraka, Lae. A friend of the accused, Jeffery Bagasel, gave evidence of it being well known in the local community that the police were after Collin and would harm him if they found him. Agnes Meten, a Public Solicitor lawyer based in Madang, gave evidence about legal assistance given to Jeffery Bagasel. The 10th accused, Bobby Selan, gave evidence of threats being made by Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban against Collin Masilo and other accused.

For the State: State witness No 32, Snr Const George Avali, gave evidence that the accused was administered his constitutional rights before his confessional statement was taken. State witness No 39, Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban, gave evidence of the accused's surrender. State witness No 40, Const Manu Pulei, gave evidence of knowing the accused well and being involved in taking of his confessional statement. State witness No 45, Chf Sgt Russell Egimbari, denied threatening or assaulting the accused.	Refused admission, oral ruling, 05.11.10	
5	5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, records of interview, 21.08.08 and 22.10.08	Involuntariness
Unfairness	For the defence: 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, gave evidence of being assaulted and mistreated upon his arrest at the residence of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, in the early hours of Tuesday 12 August 2008. Joyce Maima, who said that Johnny Gumaira was her boyfriend, gave evidence in support of the allegations of assault and said that she had also been mistreated by police, in particular by Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban. The 11th accused, Reuben Micah, gave evidence that Johnny Gumaira had been brought into the dark cells at Buimo Jail, where they first met each other and that Johnny was in a bad way, stating that he had been beaten up by police.

For the State: six police officers gave evidence, denying allegations of assault, threats or intimidation of the accused: State witness No 39, Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban; State witness No 40, Const Manu Pulei; State witness No 44, Const Noel Tumpi; State witness No 45, Chf Sgt Russell Egimbari; State witness No 46, Snr Sgt Steven Yalamu; State witness No 47, Supt Peter Guinness.	Refused admission, oral ruling, 21.10.10	
6	14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, records of interview, 27.08.08 and 20.10.08	Involuntariness
Unfairness	For the defence: 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, gave evidence of being arrested and assaulted by police outside his residence in Eagle St, Lae on the morning of Monday 7 July 2008, then being threatened, mistreated and denied access to a lawyer before agreeing to sign a false record of interview prepared by the police. The accused's friend, Stanna Koi, gave evidence in support of the allegations of police brutality.

For the State: State witness No 31, Sgt Ray Ban, said that no threats or violence were employed in the conduct of either interview. State witness No 32, Snr Const George Avali, gave evidence concerning the arrest of the accused and finding a large amount of cash in his possession, with BSP Madang seals attached – he had no knowledge of the accused being assaulted or mistreated.	Refused admission, written ruling, 05.10.10
The State v William Kapris & Ors (2010) N4139

4	STATEMENTS OF THE ACCUSED ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

15. The State tendered a number of confessional statements, records of interview and other statements made by the accused in official contexts. I refused to admit eight of them into evidence, as set out in the last table. However, a number of others were admitted into evidence, either with consent of the defence or after unsuccessful objections to their admission, and they are set out in the following table.

TABLE 4: STATEMENTS OF THE ACCUSED ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
1	William Nanua Kapris	Record of interview, 29.07.09, 30.07.09, 31.07.09, 01.08.09,
03.08.09 & 05.08.09	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 97A & 97B] 	
	Content: The police asked 1,046 questions and the accused remained silent in answer to all but a handful. He admitted escaping from Bomana Jail, while a prisoner there, in 2007. When asked if he knew Elizah Tinga (not an accused in this case) he replied that he was his nephew. When asked what assistance Elizah gave in the Madang BSP robbery, he replied that Elizah 'is an innocent man'.

He denied that police found K1,200.00 cash in his possession when they apprehended him on Magi Highway, Central Province on 17 July 2008. He agreed that two letters had been sent in his name to a National Court Judge in 2009 but said that another person, Wilson Waraningi, had written them. He stated at the end of the interview that he was being charged over the BSP Madang robbery and related matters but he was not involved in committing the crimes.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
2	Jacob Peningi Okimbari	Record of interview, 17.11.08 	Objection refused; there was an element of impropriety in conduct of interview, but not severe. Oral ruling, 18.10.10. [Exhibits 28A & 28B]	
	Content: The police asked 38 questions and the accused remained silent in answer to many. He did, however state that he is 26 years old, from Howi, Yangoru area, East Sepik Province and lives with his family in 7th Street, Lae.

Asked 'which of you planned the Madang robbery?' the accused replied 'It was William Kapis idea'. He agreed that William had sent him to Madang before the robbery. He did surveillance on the bank manager. He was in Madang when William and others came to Madang. Asked about guns used in the robbery, the accused said that they used pistols. One of the vehicles he hired was a bus that had "PORO" written on it. This bus was used 'to go and pick up Peterson, Martin and Bonny and we came to DCA at the airport and left us there after the robbery'. He admitted that the police caught him with some of the stolen money from the robbery and that it was part of his share.

He remained silent when asked other questions about how the robbery was carried out and what he and others received from it.	

No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
3	Collin Masilo	Affidavit in MP 402/09 	Objection refused – affidavit used in support of successful bail application. Oral ruling, 02.11.10.
[Exhibit 41]	
	Content: Amongst other things stated in support of his application for bail the accused asked the court to take into account his 'surrender on trust'.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
4	Bonny Solomon 	Record of interview, 06.11.09 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 91A & 91B]	
	Content: The police asked 75 questions and the accused remained silent in answer to all but a handful.

He did, however, state that he is 32 years old, from Baimuru, Yangoru area, East Sepik Province, married and is a PMV bus crew.

Asked about cash found on him when the police apprehended him in Lae, the accused said that the police got K1,200.00 from him, not K1,484.00. All the cash was in K50.00 notes, not in K2.00 notes.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
5	Johnny Gumaira	Section 96 District Courts Act statement, 23.03.09	Objection refused. Statement made by accused to District Court in committal proceedings is admissible at trial. Oral ruling, 21.10.10. [Exhibit 32]	
	Content: The accused stated that he had been forced to make a number of false statements by the police, which were recorded in his confessional statement. The false statements particularly concerned the involvement of 3rd accused, Collin Masilo.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
6	Damien Inanei	Record of interview, 23.12.08 & 24.12.08	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 92A & 92B]	
	Content: The police asked 125 questions and the accused answered all of them.

He is 28 years old, married with two children, from Kwagwie, in the Yangoru area of East Sepik Province. In 2008 he was a schoolteacher at Gum Primary and lived in a house on the school premises. He previously taught at Bogia and Begesin, Madang Province and Talasea, West New Britain Province.

He does not know 1st accused, William Kapris, and is not related to him.

He hired a dark blue taxi (sedan) from Kekam Hire Car, Madang at 3.00 pm on Wednesday 2 July and signed the rental agreement. The name of his friend, Jacob Peningi (the 2nd accused), was written on the agreement, as "Jessie Jacob". Jacob had given him K750.00 to hire the vehicle in his (Damien's) name as he does not have a licence. Jacob said that some of his boys from a team in Lae were coming to Madang for a basketball tournament and he needed a vehicle to drive them around. He and Jacob drove around on Wednesday for a while and then Jacob left him at Gum Primary and drove off in the vehicle. He does not know where Jacob went to or what he did that night.

On the afternoon of Thursday 3 July he went back with Jacob to Kekam Hire Car and extended the hire by two days at Jacob's request.

He has no knowledge of a 10-seater Landcruiser hired out by Kekam Hire Car on the afternoon of Thursday 3 July or its presence outside his house on Friday 4 July.

On Friday afternoon 4 July he was in town. He rang Jacob around 5.00 or 6.00 pm and Jacob came to the 4 Mile bus stop and picked him up and drove him home to Gum.

Jacob woke him at about 3.00 or 4.00 am on Friday 4 July to say that his friends were leaving a white Toyota Hilux near his house as it had mechanical problems and they would look for a mechanic to come and fix it. They left in another vehicle that was waiting for them on the main road. Of those people Jacob was the only one he knew.

He denied that 7th accused, Kito Aso, or 14th accused, Peter Popo, stayed at his house or that his wife cooked food for them before they went to Malolo Lodge on the night of Wednesday 2 July.

The mechanics towed the Hilux away on the morning of Saturday 5 July. His wife told him that they had come in a vehicle belonging to Raymond Parangkei (State witness No 12). He was not home then as he went to Gum village to visit a friend, Tony Amani. After that he caught a ride into town on the PMV bus, "PORO", did shopping for his wife, sent the food back to her with a friend, stayed in town for a while and then went back to the house around 1.00 or 2.00 pm. He denied that he stood watch outside the BSP while the robbery was taking place.

Jacob returned the vehicle to him on Saturday afternoon, 5 July, and then he returned it to Kekam Hire Car. Two Kekam Hire Car employees then drove him (in the same vehicle) to Danben where he drank beer with some Danben boys until 4.00 pm, when he returned to his house.

At 5.00 pm on Saturday 5 July he left for Lae in a PMV bus called "Highway Seekers", arriving in Lae around 9.00 or 10.00 pm at the house of his cousin-sister, Antonia Karis, at Lae School of Nursing. He denied going to Lae with 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, or any other accused in a Toyota Hilux, CAO 582, hired from Lama Rent-a-Car.

He knows Dominic Manua and Benjamin Manua (State witness Nos 23 & 26) as they come from the same area as him, but denies being with them or 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, in Lae on the night of Saturday 5 July.

On Monday 7 July he returned to Madang on the same bus on which he went to Lae. He received a call from his wife on the way, to say that the police had searched their house at Gum. Straight after he arrived home he went, at about 7.00 pm to Jomba police station to clear himself of allegations that he was involved in the BSP robbery. But he was arrested and locked in the cell.

He denied knowledge of the robbery and assisting those who actually committed the robbery.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
7	Kito Aso	Record of interview, 26.08.08 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 93A & 93B]	
	Content: The police asked 217 questions and the accused remained silent in answer to all but a handful.

He did however state that he is 26 years old, from Krufi, Kainantu area, Eastern Highlands Province, and that he has been brought up in and around Kimbe, West New Britain Province.

He knows 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, very well, and regards him as his elder brother. They grew up together and during 2002 they were both in prison at Lakiemata Jail, WNB.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
8	Joyce Maima	Record of interview, 02.10.08 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibit 96]	
	Content: The police asked 99 questions and the accused remained silent in answer to all but a few seeking personal details. She said that she is 26 years old, from Siane village, Eastern Highlands Province, and lives at 7th Street, Lae.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
9	Kia Warren	Record of interview, 27.01.09 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 83A & 83B]	
	Content: The police asked 65 questions and the accused said he 'did not know' in answer to most of them.

He did however state that he is 26 years old, from Tikeleng, Nawae area, Morobe Province, single and lives at Kalili Street, Papuan Compound, Lae.

He knows 10th accused, Bobby Selan, well and was on his campaign committee when he contested the election for Lord Mayor of Lae.

He hid in the bush for two or three months before being arrested by police. Asked whether the reason he was hiding was that he had committed some trouble the accused replied that he would give his explanation to the court.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
10	Bobby Selan 	Record of interview, 04.10.08 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 94 A & 94B]	
	Content: The police asked 68 questions and the accused remained silent or said he 'did not know' in answer to most of them.

He did, however, state that he is 40 years old, from Pere, Lorengau area, Manus Province, married and completed his education at Bugandi High School in 1986.

He knew that the police had searched his house in Lae on two occasions. He was in Lae from Monday 30 June to Monday 7 July. He was at work on Monday 7 July when he read about the BSP robbery in the newspaper.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
11	Reuben Micah	Record of interview, 02.10.08 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 80A & 80B]	
	Content: The police asked 59 questions and the accused remained silent or said he 'did not know' in answer to most of them.

He did, however, state that he is 34 years old, from Pam Island, Balopa area, Manus Province, married, self-employed.

He confirmed hiring a white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, from Premium Hire Car, Lae. The money for the hire came from the Youth Department of the SDA Church. He used it to go to Markham for Church Silver Jubilee celebrations and left it with Sele Sapulai but could not remember the dates of those events.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
12	Isabella Kivare	Record of interview, 01.09.08 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibit 81]	
	Content: The police asked 103 questions and the accused remained silent to most of them.

She did, however, state that she is 25 years old, from Siviri, Kerema area, Gulf Province, married, unemployed. She was brought up in Lae. Her sister, Drusilla Kivare, also lives in Lae, at 7th Street, and she has no conflicts with her.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
13	Elvis Bala Aka	Record of interview, 26.08.08 	Admitted into evidence by consent. [Exhibits 82A & 82B]	
	Content: The police asked 107 questions and the accused answered most of them, though he denied involvement in or knowledge of the BSP robbery.

He is 32 years old, from Muligani, Talasea area, West New Britain Province, married, unemployed. He sometimes stays in the village and sometimes in Kimbe.

In June 2008 he and about seven others, including 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, travelled by sea from Garu village, Talasea, to a village near Finschhafen, Morobe Province. They were in a white 23-foot banana boat, with a 40 hp Yamaha outboard motor, owned by his uncle, John Aka. He knew William as 'Justin' that being the name he was using, and he said he was a gold buyer. He did not know William before they went on this trip. They met a rasta man near Finschhafen and he came aboard and went with them to Geks Compound, Lae, where they arrived on the afternoon of Tuesday 24 June. William made a phone call and a man came in an old double-cab utility and drove them to a house in Lae (he had never been there before and does not know the name of the suburb) where they stayed the night. Amongst the group who stayed there were William (he went out that night and slept under the house when he came back) and "Tintin, light skin boy, Don, rasta man, Kito Aso and me". The 12th accused, Isabella Kivare, came to the house in the afternoon.

The next day, Wednesday 25 June, William and another man (un-named) came to the house in a light brown, double-cab hire car and drove him (Elvis), rasta man and another fellow called Steven to the house of the 10th accused, Bobby Selan, at 2nd Street, Lae. Kito and the others stayed back at the first house. William left him and the others at Bobby's house. Bobby came and said 'afternoon' to them.

Asked about the events of Thursday 3 July and whether William had come with others to Bobby's house in a white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, he replied that he was asleep. He does not know anything about William using that vehicle to drive to Madang or what happened in Madang.

He left Bobby's place on the morning of Monday 7 July and went to Benny Mai's place at Two Mile, 7 Block, Lae. Asked whether it was true that that was where William shared the proceeds of the robbery, the accused replied "I did not get mine, others got their share". In the afternoon of that day, Monday 7 July, he and William crossed a stream, went on to the road and got in a white Toyota Landcruiser, 10-seater. Then a friend of William got his workers to help them take the outboard motor, fuel and their cargo to Geks Compound. They loaded the fuel and cargo and left for sea at the mouth of the Bumbu River but the sea was rough, they almost capsized and had to return to shore. Local people helped them carry their things to a man's area (he does not know his name) and they stayed at the Geks Compound beach.

They left Geks Compound at daybreak on Tuesday 8 July and went to a village near Popondetta, Oro Province, where they stayed the night.

They left the next morning, Wednesday 9 July, called in at Oro Bay for fuel, then got as far as a village on East Cape, Milne Bay Province where they stayed on Wednesday night.

On the morning of Thursday 10 July they took a boy and a man from East Cape to show them the way, then arrived at Alotau at 3.00 pm. William went into town and bought a mobile phone. They then went to Logea Island, near Samarai, and stayed the night.

On the morning of Friday 11 July they went to Samarai. William got off to buy fuel while he (Elvis) stayed in the boat. They then left for Abau, Central Province, and stayed in a village there that night.

On Saturday 12 July they took the boat into a river at Baramata, Central Province, where a white Toyota Landcruiser came to meet them. The cargo from the boat was transferred to the vehicle. William got into the vehicle with a Papuan rasta man, a mixed-race woman and a couple of other boys from the boat, including Kito Aso. Five village boys then got onto the boat with him and they travelled by sea in the direction of Port Moresby, and came ashore at Kapari. A blue Isuzu truck, with the name "Nice Body" was there to meet them. They loaded the boat and motor on the truck and joined up with the Landcruiser, which William was driving, and went in convoy to Port Moresby, arriving at 6.00 pm. The boat and motor were left at Tamara Player Tomscoll's house at Mirigini Avenue, Boroko. Asked whether other cargo from the boat, including police uniforms, pistols, ammunition and a carton wrapped in black plastic were also left there, the accused said he did not know.

On the night of Thursday 17 July he and a number of others, including Kito, were driving towards the Aroma area of Central Province when they were arrested by the police. He does not know why they were arrested.	
No	Accused 	Document	Mode of admission	
14	Peter Allan Popo	Confessional statement, 07.07.08 	Admitted into evidence by consent during voir dire re two contentious records of interview, which were refused admission. Note that though the confessional statement was admitted into evidence, the statement was made under duress and taken improperly (see The State v Kapris & Ors (2010) N4139). This means considerable caution will be exercised by the court in using this statement as evidence against the accused. [Exhibit 22]	
	Content: He lives with his father at Eagle Street, Lae. On State of Origin night, Wednesday 2 July, he was at the house when a friend, Peter, of mixed Markham and Buka parentage, came and told him of a "job" in Madang. He knew what he meant and agreed to go to Madang.

The next night, Thursday 3 July, he was picked up by Peter and his group in a Toyota Hilux, driven by a Sepik fellow, Johnny, who lives in Port Moresby. He (the accused) travelled in the back of the utility with two others. There were about five in the cabin, including the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, who was the crew. They headed to Madang. They struck mechanical problems with the Hilux on the way, at Tapo. A phone call was made to "Jacob" (second name not given) who brought a mechanic in a dark blue hire car to check the Hilux but they could not fix it, so Jacob left.

Early the next morning, Friday 4 July, Johnny got a PMV to Madang and brought back an Ela Motors mechanic who fixed the Hilux. They arrived in Madang at 11.00 am and were dropped off at a market near Newtown. Around 8.00 or 9.00 pm the same dark-blue hire car, being driven by a boy from Madang, came and picked them up and took them along the North Coast Road to Malolo Lodge. Two rooms were booked: 3 and 10. He and his friend, Peter, first went to room 10, which is upstairs, but then they were told to go downstairs to room 3. Then the bank manager and his family, the assistant manager (without family) and a female staff member and her family were brought into room 3. He (the accused) and four others were assigned to keep watch over them.

The next morning, Saturday 5 July, William left in a green Landcruiser. In the afternoon he rang Jacob who hired a white PMV bus, with the name "PORO" on it, which came to collect them at 4.00 pm. They left the bank manager and his group behind. They went to the DCA area, Madang, then a light-grey Toyota Hilux hire-car, with tinted glass and mag wheels came and collected them. They picked up some other boys from Madang and headed to Lae. There were about 13 in the vehicle. They heard that there was a road block between Ramu and Waterais so they got off at about 7.00 pm. The vehicle proceeded to Lae and returned, once the road was clear, at 1.00 am.

They arrived in Lae at 4.00 am on Sunday 6 July. He walked home and slept all day. Around 9.00 or 10.00 pm his friend, Peter, came in an old Mazda double-cab and gave him some cash, saying it was 'little coins for the job … 50 for you', and left. He (the accused) took this to mean that it was K50,000.00. He packed the cash in two empty mobile phone boxes, taking just K400.00 with him when he drove his father's car, a grey Mitsubishi Lancer, to pick up his in-law at 7th Street. They went to City Guesthouse and drank there for a while before going to Phil's Motel, where he met with another friend, Martin, and several rooms were booked. William rang him and also came to Phil's Motel. He was in a white Toyota Landcruiser, ZGC 125. He had a smart looking Tolai lady with him and they went into room 20. He (the accused) and Martin went back to City Guesthouse and picked up two ladies and brought them to Phil's Motel.

He left Phil's Motel at 8.00 am on Monday 7 July and went to his house, intending to return to Phil's later. He gave his wife K200.00, his uncle, K100.00 and his in-law K20.00, from the cash that had been given to him by Peter the night before. The rest of the cash was in the car and was taken by the police.

He estimates that he received K45,000.00 but did not count it. He named the suspects from Lae who were involved in the robbery as Collin Masilo, Kia Warren, Jacob (whose other name he never revealed) and himself.	

5	VEHICLES REFERRED TO IN THE EVIDENCE

16. A number of witnesses refer to vehicles in their evidence, the details of which are summarised in the following table.

TABLE 5: VEHICLES REFERRED TO IN EVIDENCE

No	Reg No	Make 	Model 	Colour	Comments 	
1	BBX 786	Ford	Ranger, utility, dual-cab	Silver-green 	Akel Hire Car, Lae vehicle – hired by 8th accused, Joyce Maima, on afternoon of Saturday 5 July (as per evidence of State witness No 34, Akinu Elijah).	
2	BBX 845	Nissan	Navara, utility, dual-cab	White	BSP Madang manager's official vehicle – used to convey manager and bank staff to bank when robbery committed on morning of Saturday 5 July.	
3	BCA 247	Toyota	Landcruiser 10-seater wagon	Green	Kekam Hire Car, Madang vehicle – hired on Friday 4 July, as per arrangement of Thursday 3 July, by person unknown, not returned on due date, Saturday 5 July (as per evidence of State witness No 14, Andrew Kivung) – used for purpose of abducting bank manager, staff and families on night of Friday 4 July – used to convey manager and bank staff to bank for robbery on morning of Saturday 5 July (photos of vehicle: exhibits 39, 40). 	
4	BCF 807	Toyota 	Sprinter, sedan	Dark blue	Kekam Hire Car, Madang, vehicle – hired on Wednesday 2 July by 6th accused, Damien Inanei (as per evidence of State witness No 14, Andrew Kivung, and the accused's record of interview, exhibits 92A & 92B).	
5	CAO 582	Toyota	Hilux "5th Element", utility, dual-cab	Gold, with stripes 	Lama Rent-a-Car, Madang, vehicle – hired on afternoon of Saturday 5 July by a man called Mark Male (as per evidence of State witness No 13, Richard Tatut and exhibit 14).	
6	LAN 922	Mazda 	Bravo/B2500 utility, dual-cab	White	Reuben Micah's vehicle (exhibits 51, 52).	
7	LAP 538	Mitsubishi	Lancer, sedan	Grey	The vehicle occupied by 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, owned by his father, when apprehended by police outside his house in Eagle Street, Lae on morning of Monday 7 July (photo of vehicle: exhibits 57-58).	
8	LAQ 333	Mitsubishi	L200, utility, 
dual-cab	Green-silver	Official vehicle of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, the Credit Corporation, Lae Manager in June-July (photos of vehicle: exhibit 71).	
9	LAR 996	Toyota	Hilux, "5th Element", utility, 
dual-cab	Silver	Premium Hire Car, Lae vehicle – hired by 11th accused, Reuben Micah on Thursday 26 June and returned on Friday 27 June (as per evidence of State witness No 7, Jerry Beglana; photos of vehicle: exhibits 61, 74).	
10	LAU 337	Toyota	Hilux, "5th Element", utility,
dual-cab	Beige	Premium Hire Car, Lae – 11th accused, Reuben Micah swapped it for LAR 996 on Friday 27 June and returned it on Tuesday 2 July (as per evidence of State witness No 7, Jerry Beglana; photos of vehicle: exhibits 65, 66, 76).	
11	LAU 507	Toyota	Hilux, "5th Element", utility, dual-cab	White	Premium Hire Car vehicle, Lae – hired by 11th accused, Reuben Micah, on Tuesday 1 July –driven on 3 July to Madang where it broke down (as per evidence of State witness No 7, Jerry Beglana).	
12	P 533 Z	Toyota	Hiace, 15-seater bus	White	Has the name "PORO" written on front – owned by brother of 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira (as per evidence of State witness No 54, Ben Narina).	
13	ZGC 125	Toyota	Landcruiser 10-seater	White	Department of Labour vehicle (photos of vehicle: exhibits 53, 54).	

6	OTHER SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE FOR THE STATE

17. A number of items seized by the police during the criminal investigation were admitted and/or referred to in the evidence. Details of the most significant are summarised in the following table.
 
TABLE 6: CASH AND OTHER ITEMS SEIZED BY POLICE

No	Description	Details	Oral testimony & exhibit reference 	Mode of admission	
1	K99,900.00 cash	Cash given to the four bank officers at Malolo Lodge on Saturday 5 July. Retrieved by police on Sunday 6 July.	State witness Nos 16, 17, 19 and 21 (the four bank officers) said that the criminals left them this cash as a reward for cooperating with them (exhibit 79).	Admitted into evidence by consent.	
2	K28,733.00 cash & other items	Cash seized by police from 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, outside his residence in Eagle Street Lae, early on the morning of Monday 7 July – found in black digital camera box (K20,000.00 in K50.00 notes, K5,000.00 in K10.00 notes, with BSP tags attached), pink cell phone box (K2,340.00 in K10.00 notes); red plastic bag (K160.00 in K1.00 coins); black waist bag K1,041.00 cash & assorted other currencies, including AUD$1,710.00); blue-brown bilum (K150.00); pink wallet (K14.00).	State witnesses No 32, Snr Const George Avali, and No 43, 1st Const Chris Miria, stated that they went in hot pursuit of the accused after he was observed behaving suspiciously at Phil's Motel early on the morning of Monday 7 July – the cash and other items were found in the car that the accused was driving, a grey Mitsubishi Lancer, LAP 538.
[Exhibits 29-31]	Objection refused; no search warrant required under Search Act as the police were in hot pursuit of a suspect. Court satisfied that evidence was lawfully and fairly obtained. Oral ruling, 19.10.10.

	
3	K1,484.00 cash	Cash seized by police from 4th accused, Bonny Solomon, at Unitech, Lae, on the morning of Monday 7 July – found in his pocket (K1,250.00 in K50.00 notes, K14.00 in K2.00 notes). The police also went to the house of a relative of the accused and seized K200.00 in K2.00 notes; and the police were also handed K20.00 that was said to have come from the accused.	State witness No 59, Sgt Rimur Bola, drove with a police squad from Madang to Lae in the early hours of Monday 7 July, acting on information that the robbery suspects had headed to Lae. Sgt Bola knows the accused as they are both long-term residents of Madang. Initial contact was made with the accused's relatives and then he was spotted at the Unitech campus. He ran away when he saw the police approach but they apprehended him with the assistance of some students, who assaulted him. [Exhibit 90]	Admitted into evidence by consent.	
4	K4,600.00 cash	Cash seized by police during early morning raid on Tuesday 12 August on the residence of 8th accused, Joyce Maima, also occupied by 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, at Gannet Street, Lae. Cash, with BSP Madang tags, (two bundles of K2.00 notes in plastic bags and three bundles of K20.00 notes, not in plastic bags).	State witness No 39, Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban, led a police squad, including State witness Nos 37, Snr Sgt James Luan, and 38, 1st Const Kisofe Ahuma, who executed a search warrant. The cash was found in Joyce's upstairs bedroom in various wrappings within a pillowcase. She was arrested, together with the man she said in her voir dire evidence was her boyfriend, the 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira. [Exhibits 23A-23D, 60]	Objection refused; not proven that the search warrant, issued by a District Court Magistrate under the Search Act was unlawfully obtained or executed. Oral ruling, 14.10.10.

	
5	K129,500.00 cash	Cash seized by police at Igam settlement, Lae, on Friday 15 August, in bush near house occupied by relatives of 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira. Cash, with BSP Madang tags, in green camouflage suitcase, 20 cm x 40 cm, within various wrappings (K20,000.00 in K50.00 notes, K80,000.00 in K20.00 notes, K25,000.00 in K10.00 notes, K2,500.00 in K5.00 notes, K2,000.00 in K2.00 notes).	State witness No 39, Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban, led a police squad, including State witness Nos 37, Snr Sgt James Luan, and 38, 1st Const Kisofe Ahuma, who, acting on information received, tracked down a suitcase that had been buried, and had before then passed through the hands of relatives of 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira. [Exhibits 23A-23D, 60]	Objection refused; no search warrant required under Search Act and court satisfied that the evidence was lawfully and fairly obtained. Oral ruling, 14.10.10.

	
6	K 6,122.00 cash & other items	Cash seized by police from house occupied by 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, at Ramu, Madang Province, on the afternoon of Tuesday 4 November – found in a BSP cloth bag (three plastic bundles of cash plus loose notes). Two brand new satellite phones were also seized.	State witness No 39, Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban, led a police squad, including State witness No 40, Const Manu Pulei, who followed the accused from Lae to Ramu. Const Pulei shot the accused, who was then taken to Angau Hospital, Lae. [Exhibits 26A & 26B]	Objection refused; no search warrant required under Search Act as the police were in hot pursuit of a suspect. Court satisfied that evidence was lawfully and fairly obtained. Oral ruling, 14.10.10.	
7	K161,800.00 cash – note: this cash was not an exhibit but documents and oral evidence were received that suggested it existed, and was recovered by the police and given to BSP	This amount of cash, in bundles, with BSP Madang tags attached, was delivered by the police (Supt Fred Yakasa) to BSP's National Operations Manager, State witness No 48, John Brutnall, at BSP's head office in Port Moresby on Thursday 2 October.	The State argues that this was, largely, the cash seized by State witness No 56, Sgt Terry Apollos at the residence of Tamara Tomscoll Player, Mirigini Avenue, Boroko, on the afternoon of Thursday 17 July and then counted by State witness No 57, Snr Const Remie Jogioba, and given to Supt Yakasa on Friday 18 July. [Exhibits 33-34, 84]	Documents showing the receipt of the cash by BSP and how it was dealt with by the bank were admitted into evidence by consent.	
8	Firearms, police uniforms etc	Items seized by police at residence of Tamara Tomscoll Player, Mirigini Avenue, Boroko, on the afternoon of Thursday 17 July: 2 factory made pistols + 3 sets of police mobile squad uniforms, one with rank of Inspector on shoulders + 42 live bullets + 1 rainbow bag.	These items were seized by State witness No 56, Sgt Terry Apollos at the residence of Tamara Tomscoll Player, Mirigini Avenue, Boroko, on the afternoon of Thursday 17 July and then given to MOCIT exhibits officer, State witness No 57, Snr Const Remie Jogioba, for preservation of evidence. [Exhibits 84-88]	Admitted into evidence by consent.	

7	UNSWORN STATEMENTS FROM THE DOCK

18. After the close of the State's case and after the court rejected no-case submissions on behalf of all accused (oral ruling, 09.12.10), 12 of the accused remained silent and two made unsworn statements from the dock.

19. The 4th accused, Bonny Solomon, stated that he comes from the Sepik and lives in Madang. He went to Lae on Sunday 6 July to sell betel nut at the Kamkumung betel nut market. He sold seven bags for K200.00 each, earning a total of K1,400.00. He slept with relatives that night. Meanwhile, the police in Madang were questioning many Sepiks living in Madang and when they found out that he had gone to Lae, he became a suspect. The two police officers who gave evidence against him (State witness Nos 58, 1st Const Mathew Giaut, and 59, Sgt Rimur Bola) know him well, as they live in the same part of town. They went to Lae to look for him and raided his sister's house and then forced his sister to ring him and get him to come to Unitech. When he got to Unitech there was a big fight going on between Highlands and Sepik students and because he is a Sepik he was in fear. That was when the police came along in an unmarked vehicle and ordered him to stop. He was in a state of fear because of the fight so he ran away. The police caught him and assaulted him badly and further assaulted him when they drove to the place where he had stayed the night. They smashed and searched the house but found nothing. They took K1,250.00 from his pocket, which was all betel nut money, insisting that it was stolen money. They held him in custody and took him to Madang, leaving Lae at 2.00 am on Tuesday 8 July. He was kept in the police cell for six days without charge.

20. The 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, stated that he was in Lae when a friend arrived from Port Moresby and asked him to help him look for a vehicle. So he (Johnny) asked his wife, Joyce, (presumably referring to the 8th accused, Joyce Maima) to help the friend look for a vehicle. He did not know why the friend had come to Lae but the friend gave him a bag to take care of and he told the friend that he would give the bag to his family to look after. He (Johnny) did not know the contents of the bag. The friend gave him K5,000.00 cash and said that is 'for beer or whatever you want to use it for'. He spent about K400.00 on beer. He did not show Joyce the cash or tell her anything about the friend giving it to him. He regards his situation as similar to that of State witness No 22, Ian Wamo, who was given a large amount of money to look after. The accused concluded by stating that he has no knowledge of the BSP Madang robbery, nor does his wife. Neither of them were part of the robbery.

8	OTHER DEFENCE EVIDENCE

21. The defence called only one witness, Donald Joseph, a lawyer in Madang. He was summoned to give evidence. Mr Joseph said that on the weekend of 5-6 July he booked a room at Malolo Lodge for a friend who was visiting from his home province, Western Highlands. He left town at about 10.00 pm on Saturday 5 July and drove the friend to Malolo Lodge, dropped him there and was about to return to town when the Manager of Malolo Lodge, who is also a friend, asked if he could help one of his clients who wanted a lift into town. Mr Joseph, who was driving a utility, agreed and the client – a man named Paul, who Mr Joseph now believes was one of the bank employees who had been kidnapped for the purposes of the BSP robbery – got into the back of the utility with some other men who Mr Joseph had taken for a drive out to the Lodge. Mr Joseph estimates that when they left Malolo Lodge it was 11.00 pm.

22. On the way into town, near the Lutheran High School, some thugs threw rocks at the vehicle. Then as they came closer to town, near Madang Teachers College, Paul knocked on the cabin of the utility, indicating that he wanted to get off. So Mr Joseph stopped the vehicle and Paul got off. They did not have any conversation. Mr Joseph then proceeded to the Jomba police station to report that his vehicle had been stoned. The police told him that there had been a robbery. He left the station at about 11.30 pm.

PART B: FINDINGS OF FACT

23. Before making findings of fact I will deal with two general submissions made by the defence. It was submitted that both the police investigation and the prosecution of their clients had been conducted unfairly and that the court must take this into account when making findings of fact and determining the verdicts.

24. It is true that elements of unfairness and impropriety extending into breaches of human rights by the police were exposed during this trial. The police exceeded their powers on a number of occasions and engaged in acts of brutality and torture against some accused. Those incidents and allegations have been dealt with on their merits, mainly in the seven separate voir dire hearings held to determine the admissibility of nine contentious records of interview or confessional statements (see table 3). Of the contentious documents, eight were refused admission, which reflects the fact that many allegations against police were upheld. Allegations of police illegality and impropriety connected with seizure of cash and other significant items of evidence during the police investigation were also dealt with on a case-by-case basis (see table 6). Thus the unfairness and impropriety alleged against the police have already largely been taken into account.

25. As to conduct of the trial, defence counsel complained on numerous occasions that they were caught by surprise, not knowing which witnesses named on the indictments were being called, or in what order they would be called. Another complaint was to do with incomplete committal files. Mr Daniels, in particular, submitted that the committal files for his three clients were deficient. Prejudicial evidence was drawn from committal files of accused other than his clients and he was caught off-guard when this happened. Inadequate notice was being given by the State of these developments, so the submission was that the State was engaging in trial-by-ambush tactics.

26. I heard and determined such submissions on an individual basis and issued directions accordingly. I heard adjournment applications as and when they were made so that counsel could be given a proper opportunity to defend their clients. At the same time I was conscious of the logistical difficulties being faced by the State in prosecuting a trial of this complexity: 14 accused, multiple indictments and charges, 60 State witnesses, numerous documents and other exhibits, seven voir dire hearings and limited resources at its disposal was a combination of factors that was always going to present the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the lead prosecutor, Mr Kaluwin, with a challenging prosecutorial task.

27. I was also, of course, alert to the overriding, constant and continuous duty of the Court to see that each of the 14 accused was accorded his or her rights under the Constitution, Section 37, to, amongst other things, the full protection of the law (s 37(1)), to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court (s 37(3)), and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (s 37(4)(a)). I am confident that the constitutional rights of all accused have been enforced and that the matters complained of by defence counsel have been fully taken into account during the course of the trial.

28. I will now make findings of fact, which are generally set out in chronological order. Where a significant finding is made regarding an accused, his or her name appears in bold effect.

1 	EVENTS IN LAE PRIOR TO THE ROBBERY: LATE JUNE TO 4 JULY

29. These findings are based primarily on the evidence of State witness Nos 1 Timon Kataka, 2 Ezekiel John Mai, 3 Jane Ezekiel, 4 Ronny Jimbu, 6 Gideon Suivio, 7 Jerry Beglana, 24 Adam Orosombo and 25 Alfred Kaindu.

Credibility of State witnesses

30. All are regarded as reliable witnesses, including Timon Kataka, a key witness whose credibility was seriously challenged by the defence. He was at one stage of the police investigation regarded as a suspect as he was in close contact with some of the accused in and around Lae before and after the robbery and was caught by police at Finschhafen with K6,000.00 cash (all in K20.00 notes) and marijuana in his possession soon after 5 July. The police agreed to charge him only for possession of dangerous drugs (which resulted in him being convicted and sentenced to a three-month term of imprisonment) in return for him being a State witness in this trial. The defence submitted that this undermined his credibility as he was an accomplice of those who committed the robbery and his evidence should be disregarded.

31. I reject that proposition, for two reasons. First, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he was an accomplice. The fact that a witness was at one stage a suspect in the same crime being prosecuted does not necessarily result in him being labelled an accomplice (The State v Wama Dua, Daniel Bema & John Goga (2005) N2854). Secondly, if I am wrong in finding that he was not criminally involved than to the extent he is regarded as an accomplice I caution myself as the tribunal of fact of the danger in convicting or making a finding of fact adverse to any of the accused based on his testimony, particularly those parts of it that are uncorroborated. This caution is stated in order to comply with the principles of accomplice evidence, which take account of the risk that an accomplice (who may or may not be an accused) might fabricate evidence against an accused to get even or exonerate himself or shift blame to the accused (The State v Titeva Fineko [1978] PNGLR 262, The State v Francis Laumadava [1994] PNGLR 291, Abraham Saka v The State (2003) SC719).

32. I also take into account that Mr Kataka was cross-examined vigorously by three defence counsel. There were some inconsistencies between two witness statements that he signed (exhibits 1 and 2) and his oral evidence. However, having assessed his demeanour in the witness box I consider that his credibility as a witness remained intact and ultimately I have concluded that his evidence was reliable.

33. The defence also argued that the evidence of Ezekiel John Mai and his daughter Jane Ezekiel was suspect: they should be regarded as accomplices or accessories after the fact as it was revealed in cross-examination that they obtained some proceeds of the robbery. Ezekiel John, in particular, was very selective in his evidence-in-chief as he did not tell the court that a gathering he attended on Monday 7 July (two days after the robbery) was at his father's house and that he was given K5,000.00 cash. These facts were only extracted from the witness in cross-examination. I have taken these matters into account. I do not consider that either witness was an accomplice but to the extent that they are regarded as accomplices I caution myself of the dangers involved in relying on their uncorroborated testimony. As with Mr Kataka, after assessing their demeanour in the witness box and the nature of their evidence I have concluded that they are reliable witnesses.

34. Other evidence as to events in Lae prior to the robbery is found in the records of interview of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, 7th accused, Kito Aso, and 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka, and the confessional statement of 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo (which is treated with caution in view of the circumstances in which it was obtained).

35. The court's findings as to what happened in Lae prior to the robbery are as follows.
 
Travel to Lae: June 2008

36. The 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, had been staying in West New Britain for some time in 2008, having in 2007 escaped from Bomana Jail, where he was a prisoner serving time for various offences.

37. In the second half of June 2008 – probably on or about Saturday the 21st – he and about seven others left Garu village in the Talasea area of WNB, in a 23-foot banana boat powered by a 40 hp outboard motor, bound for Lae. The 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka, was the skipper. The boat was owned by Elvis's uncle. Elvis said he did not know William before this trip. In fact William used the name 'Justin' and told Elvis that he was a gold buyer. Amongst the others on board was the 7th accused, Kito Aso, an Eastern Highlander who has been brought up in Kimbe who knows William well and regards him as an elder brother; Martin (of mixed Siassi-Central parentage); Paul (William's nephew); a fellow called 'Tallman' (from WNB); Steven; and 'Shortie' (a short man, with dark complexion).

Monday 23 June

38. They made landfall on the mainland at Gingala village, near Finschhafen, Morobe Province, and met up with State witness No 1, Timon Kataka, who guided them towards Lae. They stayed that night at Malasika.

Tuesday 24 June

39. They left for Lae in the morning. They ran out of fuel at the mouth of the Busu River, drifted for a while, then got a tow and eventually made it to Lae, coming ashore at Geks Compound on Tuesday afternoon. They were met by a local resident, State witness No 4, Ronny Jimbu, an East Sepik man who has been living at Geks Compound for a long time. Mr Jimbu did not know any of the men on the boat, which arrived unexpectedly. William was clearly the leader of the group, and Mr Jimbu called him "Boss". William told him that he was an undercover policeman from Kimbe.

40. William made a call on his mobile phone and not long afterwards the 11th accused, Reuben Micah, a tall Manus man who was living and working in Lae, came to Geks Compound. Identification of Reuben was made in evidence by Mr Kataka. Mr Jimbu also gave evidence (although he did not identify Reuben in court) of a man coming to meet William and shaking hands with him, and this caused Mr Jimbu to think that they were both policemen. This other man was Reuben Micah. He was driving his older-model white Mazda Bravo utility, LAN 922 (table 5, No 6). The outboard motor was put on the white Mazda. William told Mr Jimbu that they would come back later with a bigger vehicle to remove the boat. But that never happened. The boat was to stay near Mr Jimbu's place at Geks Compound for almost two weeks before William and others left on it on Tuesday 8 July, bound for the Papuan coast. William did, however, return to Geks Compound, a few days after 24 June. He apologised to Mr Jimbu for leaving the boat there so long. He said he had been on police work in Kainantu, was still looking for a bigger vehicle and gave Mr Jimbu K50.00.

41. Reuben drove William's group from Geks Compound to the residence of State witness Nos 2 and 3, Ezekiel John Mai and Jane Ezekiel (father and daughter) at Two Mile, Block 7. Also at this house was 12th accused, Isabella Kivare, and her small child. Isabella is from Gulf Province but was brought up in Lae. She had been staying at the house since Thursday 19 June, renting a bedroom. The arrangement had been made by Mr Mai's wife. The first Mr Mai knew about it was when he came home from work on the 19th to find Isabella – who he did not know before – in the house. His wife told him about the arrangement and he agreed to it as their daughter, Jane, was about to go on school holidays to Southern Highlands Province and the room would be vacant for a while.

42. Mr Mai, who is of mixed East Sepik and Simbu parentage, did not know anything about William and his group coming to his house until he got home from work in the afternoon to find some unfamiliar men there. He asked his wife what was going on and she said they had come from Kimbe to see Isabella. He became concerned when he realised that one of them was the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, whose face he had seen on the EMTV program Crime Stoppers, but decided not to alert the police for fear of repercussions.

43. While at Mr Mai's place, William unpacked bags that had been brought on the boat, which contained, amongst other things, guns. He distributed them to members of his group. William's group, as well as Mr Kataka, stayed there that night. William slept downstairs on a table.

44. Also on Tuesday 24 June the outboard motor was taken to a house in Gannet Street, in the Cassowary Road area of Lae, occupied by State witness No 6, Gideon Suivio. He comes from Kainantu, has lived in Lae for 20 years, is a Manager with Lae Bus Service and knows William as he is married to William's niece. Mr Suivio knew nothing about the outboard motor until he came home after work one day in late June (probably Tuesday the 24th) and found it in his house. One of his in-laws, a young boy, said that 'Uncle William' had called in and left it.

Wednesday 25 June

45. William heard that there were police in the vicinity so he decided to move the group to another place. He left Mr Mai's house at Two Mile in the morning and came back in the afternoon in a brown Toyota Hilux. William was driving and Reuben was his offsider. The evidence is a little unclear as to which vehicle this was and also whether the incident actually occurred on Wednesday the 25th. There is clear evidence (set out below) that Reuben hired three vehicles from Premium Hire Car, Lae, in a short space of time, from Thursday 26 June to Tuesday 1 July. One of them was a beige Toyota Hilux, LAU 337, which he hired from Friday 27 June to Tuesday 2 July. There is no evidence that Reuben had possession of a brown Hilux on Wednesday 25 June.

46. Despite this discrepancy in the evidence, I find it proven that at some time from Wednesday 25 to Friday 27 June, Reuben was together with William and that this is when the group moved to another location in Lae, leaving Isabella and her child at the Mai residence at Two Mile. William and his group did not return there until Sunday 6 July.

William's group moves to 2nd Street

47. The place that William's group moved to at some time from Wednesday 25 to Friday 27 June was the residence of the 10th accused, Bobby Selan, at 2nd Street, Lae. William and some members of his group stayed there until Thursday 3 July. Bobby was working at the time. Amongst those who came to and out of his house during that period were the third accused, Collin Masilo, and the 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo. It was at this house in 2nd Street that Mr Kataka saw William and members of his group with guns and bullets, which William distributed to members of the group.

Identification evidence

48. When giving evidence Mr Kataka clearly identified William, Collin, Kito, Reuben, Isabella, Elvis and Peter. The only person he had difficulty identifying was Bobby.

49. As the defence challenged this identification evidence, it is necessary to refer to the principles on identification evidence set out in the leading Supreme Court cases of John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115, Biwa Geta v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 153 and Jimmy Ono v The State (2002) SC698. There are inherent dangers in relying on the correctness of identification to support a conviction. Therefore I caution myself, as the tribunal of fact, accordingly. In a criminal trial in PNG, there is no jury, so the Judge performs the role of the jury, which is regarded as the tribunal of fact in jurisdictions that have trial by jury. In PNG the Judge is both the tribunal – ie the arbiter – of law and the tribunal of fact. Hence I am required to administer a caution to myself in order to give the full protection of the law to the accused.

50. If the quality of identification evidence is good this will help support a conviction. If the quality of the evidence is poor an acquittal should be entered unless there is other evidence that goes to support the correctness of the identification. There is always the possibility that an honest witness can be mistaken and still be a convincing witness. The court must be satisfied that the identification witness is both honest and accurate. In assessing the quality of the identification evidence, relevant considerations include: whether the witness is purporting to identify a person who was a stranger or someone he knew or recognised; the length of time that the witness observed the accused (eg a prolonged period or a fleeting glance); the emotional state of the witness at the time of the incident; the prevailing conditions (eg was it broad daylight or at dusk or dawn or inside or outside?); the line of sight (eg did the witness have a clear front-on view or was the line of sight interrupted or did the witness just see the accused from the side?). If there are discrepancies in the identification evidence the court should consider them and assess whether they are explicable in terms other than dishonesty or unreliability.

51. Having considered those principles, I take into account my assessment of the witness, Timon Kataka, as being honest and reliable. His demeanour was sound. It was not proven that he had a motive for giving false evidence.

52. In the case of William, he was identifying someone who he knew and to whom he is related (Mr Kataka's brother is married to William's sister).

53. As for Kito and Elvis, he was on a boat with them for two days before they got to Lae and then stayed with them in Lae for a few days (or two weeks in the case of Elvis).

54. He had several opportunities to observe Reuben over several days.

55. He said that he met Collin for the first time at Bobby's place but the fact that he, Collin, was coming and going from Bobby's house makes his recognition of him credible.

56. As for Peter, Mr Kataka said that he had met him once before at Peter's house in Eagle Street, Lae. That was in 2002.

57. There is no suggestion that Mr Kataka was emotionally disturbed or physically unwell at the time he was in contact with these people. He saw them in daylight hours and had ample opportunity to observe and remember them. He was recalling events that occurred only a little over two years before he gave his evidence. His identification evidence is therefore, generally, of high quality.

58. The only exception is in the case of Bobby Selan. Mr Kataka did not, at first, make a positive identification of Bobby. It was only after an adjournment that he was able to identify him, his explanation being that Bobby previously 'had his head bowed'. Ultimately I am satisfied that this was a satisfactory identification. Mr Kataka corroborated the identification by his oral evidence that he was told at the time that he stayed in the house at 2nd Street that it was Bobby Selan's house. Elvis in his record of interview says that he went with others – including a person who was referred to as rasta man – to Bobby Selan's house at 2nd Street. There was evidence that Mr Kataka had dreadlocks in 2008 and I find that he is the person referred to by Elvis as rasta man in his record of interview.

59. I conclude that identification evidence of Mr Kataka regarding Bobby is sound as his identification evidence of William, Collin, Kito, Reuben, Isabella, Elvis and Peter.

60. I find that the residence of 10th accused Bobby Selan in 2nd Street, Lae, was used as a base or staging post by 1st accused William Nanua Kapris and others involved in the robbery in the two-week period leading up to the robbery and was the place where Mr Kataka continued to stay while William and others went to Madang to commit the robbery. 

Another accused in Lae

61. The 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, was also in Lae in the last week of June. He is from East Sepik but was born and raised in Lae. He was living there in 2008 with his family at 7th Street. The evidence that he was there in the last week of June comes from State witness No 24, Adam Orosombo, who lives and works at the Orosombo Metal Fabrication Workshop, East Taraka. He knows Jacob well as they grew up and went to school together in Lae.

62. Jacob came to the workshop one afternoon – probably on Tuesday 24th or Wednesday 25th June – with two other men in a white Mazda dual-cab. It is not clear who the others were. In examination-in-chief Mr Orosombo gave ambivalent identification evidence suggesting that one of them was the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris. He also gave evidence that he had been intimidated by the police during the investigation (particularly by Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban) and that the intimidation, although less severe than in 2008, was continuing during the trial. His evidence has therefore been treated with caution. He was shown a photo of Reuben's white Mazda Bravo, LAN 922 (see table 5, No 6) and asked to identify it. He said it might have been the vehicle but he did not see the plate number.

63.	Despite the unsatisfactory aspects of this evidence it can be safely concluded that Jacob did, in fact, go to the Orosombo workshop in the company of two others. The purpose of Jacob's visit was to see if "Collin" was there. He was referring to the 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, Mr Orosombo's brother-in-law, who is married to Mr Orosombo's sister and who lives with him at the workshop. Mr Orosombo told Jacob and his companions that Collin was not in, so they left.

64. I also find that Jacob met with William in Lae in the last week of June and that William sent him ahead to Madang to lay the groundwork for the robbery. This is apparent from Jacob's record of interview of 17 November 2008, admitted into evidence as exhibits 28A & 28B (see table 4, No 2). I find that Jacob made his own way to Madang probably on or about Thursday 27 or Friday 28 June. He says in his record of interview that he did surveillance work in Madang on the Bank Manager. This is consistent with the evidence as to how the manager was intercepted on his way home from work on Friday evening 4 July. Clearly the Manager's movements had been monitored before then and I find that Jacob was the one responsible for that.

Vehicles hired by Reuben Micah

65. As indicated above, Reuben hired three vehicles from Premium Hire Car, Kevani Street, Lae, in a short space of time, from Thursday 26 June to Tuesday 1 July. Evidence of these transactions came from the Manager of Premium Hire Car, State witness No 7, Jerry Beglana, who comes from Goroka and knows Reuben well as they are both members of the SDA Church. Reuben was at the time the Lae District Youth Coordinator for the SDA Mission. Mr Beglana identified him in court.

66. On Thursday 26 June Reuben rang Mr Beglana and said that he wanted to hire a car for a day or two as his own car, a white Mazda Bravo, had mechanical problems. So, Mr Beglana hired him a silver Toyota Hilux dual-cab utility, LAR 996.

67. The next day, Friday 27 June, Reuben rang and said that LAR 996 had some problems. One of the doors was broken and the stereo was not working. So Mr Beglana allocated him another vehicle. They swapped. The vehicle he hired to Reuben was a beige Toyota Hilux dual-cab utility, LAU 337.

68. On Tuesday 1 July Reuben told Mr Beglana he would like to hire another utility, which he needed for the 100-year SDA Church celebration at Kaiapit, in the Markham area. He wanted to take youths there in the vehicle. Mr Beglana asked him about LAU 337 and Reuben said it was being used by one of his clients. He said that he needed a car urgently to go to Markham and that LAU 337 would be returned the next morning. Reuben came in and gave him K2,200.00 cash for the new hire. Reuben was at that stage staying at a house at the junction of Bumbu Road and Markham Road next to Lae Showground. Reuben asked Mr Beglana to deliver the vehicle to his house, so Mr Beglana drove it around there. This was the third vehicle Reuben had hired in four days. It was a white Toyota Hilux dual-cab utility, LAU 507.

69. The next day, Wednesday 2 July, Reuben returned LAU 337, leaving LAU 507 as the only Premium Hire Car in his possession.

70. Mr Beglana did not hear from Reuben again until the following Saturday, 5 July (the day of the robbery). Mr Beglana had just arrived home from church, at 4.00 pm, when Reuben rang to say that he was in Madang. He had a problem with the fuel injector on LAU 507 and was getting a mechanic in Madang to fix it. He told Mr Beglana not to worry.

71.		Mr Beglana did not regard any of these transactions and events as unusual or untoward. He knew Reuben well and trusted him. Reuben hired vehicles from him from time to time. He was a little concerned when Reuben rang from Madang and also when he returned to Lae without LAU 507 but he accepted Reuben's assurances that the vehicle was safe and secure.

72. As to Reuben's movements during the nine-day period from the day of the first hire, Thursday 26 June, to the day of the robbery, Saturday 5 July, I find that he was in Lae from the start of that period (and was on several occasions in the company of William and on one occasion went to Bobby Selan's place to drop off a 10-kg bag of rice for the people staying there) until the night of Thursday 3 July, when he travelled towards Madang in LAU 507. It broke down at Tapo, about 30 km from Madang.

73. These findings emerge from the confessional statement of Peter Allan Popo. Peter does not say that Reuben was in the vehicle but the only reasonable inference to draw from evidence about attempts to get the vehicle fixed in Madang (the findings on what happened in Madang are set out below) and what Reuben said to Mr Beglana when he rang from Madang, is that Reuben was in LAU 507 on the trip to Madang.

74. As to the 100-year SDA Church celebration at Kaiapit there is no evidence that Reuben used LAU 507 to transport youths there (which is the reason for which he told Mr Beglana he needed the vehicle urgently) or even that he went there at all on Wednesday 2 July (when he picked the vehicle) or Thursday 3 July (when he left for Madang). It was not up to Reuben to prove that he, in fact, went to Kaiapit. However, the absence of any evidence that he went there, coupled with what he told people in Madang (that he had brought youths there in LAU 507 for a basketball tournament) drives the conclusion that he did not go to Kaiapit. He misled Mr Beglana about the purpose for which he needed the vehicle, and this adds to suspicion over his motives and conduct.
 
Trip from Lae to Madang: Thursday 3 July

75. I find that William, who was the leader of the group, left Lae on the night of Thursday 3 July in LAU 507. Also in the vehicle were:

•	The 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira. Peter, in his confessional statement, says that the driver was a Sepik called Johnny. Like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th accused, Johnny Gumaira comes from East Sepik Province. The only complication in basing a finding on Peter's confessional statement is that he states that the Johnny who was driving lived in Port Moresby, whereas the evidence at trial is that Johnny Gumaira was a Lae resident. However, this discrepancy is insignificant as Johnny Gumaira, as later evidence will show, was the recipient of a substantial amount of cash (at least K134,100.00), being proceeds of the robbery, which is consistent with his playing a significant role in the robbery. The reasonable inference is that he was in the vehicle.

•	The 7th accused, Kito Aso. Later evidence will show, he was also with William at Malolo Lodge on Friday and Saturday, 4 and 5 July. The reasonable inference (especially as he had accompanied William on the boat from WNB and stayed with him in Lae) is that he travelled in the vehicle.

•	The 11th accused Reuben Micah. I have just found that Reuben hired the vehicle on the pretext that he was going to drive it to Kaiapit but it ended up in Madang. So he was obviously in the vehicle.

•	The 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo. He was in the vehicle, by his own admission in his confessional statement. Later evidence will show that he was also with William at Malolo Lodge on Friday and Saturday 4 and 5 July and that a substantial amount of cash (approximately K28,000.00), being proceeds of the robbery, was found in his possession two days after the robbery.

76. As for the accused other than William, Johnny, Kito, Reuben and Peter, I find that:

•	The 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, was not in the vehicle. He was (as emerged from his record of interview) already in Madang.

•	The 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, was probably in the vehicle but there is insufficient evidence on which to base a finding of fact to that effect.

•	The 4th accused, Bonny Solomon, was not in the vehicle. As later evidence will show, he was probably in Madang.

•	The 6th accused, Damien Inanei, was not in the vehicle. As later evidence will show, he was in Madang.

•	The 8th accused, Joyce Maima, was not in the vehicle. She was in Lae at all material times.

•	The 9th accused, Kia Warren, might have been in the vehicle but there is insufficient evidence to make a finding to that effect or to find firmly that he was at any particular place on the night of Thursday 3 July.

•	The 10th accused, Bobby Selan, was not in the vehicle. He was in Lae at all material times.

•	The 12th accused, Isabella Kivare, was not in the vehicle. She was in Lae at all material times.

•	The 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka, was not in the vehicle. There is no evidence that he went to Madang at any time. He was in Lae at all material times.

2	EVENTS IN MADANG AROUND THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY: 2 TO 5 JULY

77. These findings are based primarily on the evidence of State witness Nos 5 Dama Somi, 8 Betty Kig, 9 Paul Kasai, 10 Jeffery Sana, 11 Palei Ralewa, 12 Raymond Parangkei, 13 Richard Tatut, 14 Andrew Kivung, 15 Moses Siat and 20 Top Songo. All are regarded as reliable witnesses. Other evidence as to events in Madang around the time of the robbery is found in the records of interview of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari and 6th accused, Damien Inanei, and the confessional statement of 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo. The court's findings as to what happened in Madang around the time of the robbery are as follows.

Wednesday 2 July

78. The 6th accused, Damien Inanei, went to Kekam Hire Car, Madang, on the afternoon of this day and hired a dark blue Toyota Sprinter sedan, BCF 807 (see table 5, No 4). He was accompanied by his friend, 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari. The rental agreement was not in evidence and the Kekam employee who carried out the transaction did not give evidence. 

79. However, the Kekam mechanic who checked the vehicle before it was hired, State witness No 14, Andrew Kivung, gave oral evidence that it was hired by a man called Damien. In his record of interview Damien states that he hired the vehicle, in his name, at Jacob's request, as Jacob did not have a licence. Damien and Jacob then drove around in the vehicle.

Thursday 3 July

80. The vehicle used by those who committed the robbery and kidnapped and detained the bank officers and their family members was a green Toyota Landcruiser 10-seater, BCA 247 (see table 5, No 3). It was a Kekam Hire Car vehicle and on Thursday 3 July a man went to the Kekam premises and arranged to hire it. His identity did not emerge from the evidence. As in the case of the other Kekam Hire Car vehicle (dark blue Toyota Sprinter sedan, BCF 807) evidence as to details of the hire is sparse. However, the evidence of Mr Kivung is sufficient to support the finding that hire of the 10-seater was arranged on Thursday and the vehicle was picked up the next day, as planned, but not returned on Saturday the 5th when it was supposed to be.

81. The Sprinter sedan was due to be returned on this day, Thursday, but Damien went back with Jacob to Kekam Hire Car and extended the hire for two days.

82. Meanwhile the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which had been hired from Premium Hire Car, had left Lae, probably on the afternoon on Thursday the 3rd. I recorded earlier the court's findings as to who was in that vehicle: 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, 5th accused Johnny Gumaira, 7th accused Kito Aso, 11th accused Reuben Micah (who had hired the vehicle) and 14th accused Peter Allan Popo. The vehicle broke down close to Madang and news of the problem was conveyed to 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari who, at 7.30 pm, went to the house, at Gum village, of a mechanic he knows. Jacob took the mechanic to the broken-down vehicle, which was at the Gogol Bridge on the Lae-Madang Highway.

83. The mechanic was State witness No 9 Paul Kasai, who works at Coastal Engineering, Madang. He knows Jacob as he had previously repaired a vehicle for him. He identified him in court. Jacob came to Paul's house in a white-grey Nissan Bluebird sedan (not the dark blue Toyota Sprinter that Jacob and Damien Inanei had hired the day before). Jacob was with another man. Mr Kasai recalls that the vehicle he was asked to check was a white Toyota Hilux. He does not know its registration number. He heard a knock in the engine and immediately told the four or five men in the Hilux that it was a major problem, he could not fix it and the vehicle would have to be towed to a workshop in town. Those men said they had come from Lae for a basketball tournament in Madang. Jacob and his friend then drove Mr Kasai back to his house at Gum. Mr Kasai formed the view that Jacob was an inexperienced driver as he kept driving the vehicle into potholes and on a number of occasions stalled it due to driving in high gear at low speed. Mr Kasai saw the white Toyota Hilux again on the following Saturday, 5 July, near Gum Primary School. It was being towed towards town by an auto electrician he knows, Palei Ralewa (State witness No 11).

84. The 6th accused, Damien Inanei, was in 2008 a teacher at Gum Primary School and lived in a house in the school compound. There was a lot of vehicular activity around his house on Thursday 3 and Friday 4 July. This finding emerges from the evidence of State witness Nos 5, Dama Somi, and 8, Betty Kig, who were teachers at Gum Primary, living in the school compound and Damien's neighbours. Mr Somi recalls Thursday the 3rd as that was the day he came back from leave. He saw a blue sedan (matching the description of the dark blue Toyota Sprinter sedan, BCF 807, which Damien hired from Kekam Hire Car) come to and leave from Damien's house; though he did not see who was in the vehicle due to its tinted glass. There were also a number of other vehicles coming and going around Damien's house during the course of the night. Mrs Kig's evidence was similar.

85. At 7.00 pm on Thursday the 3rd three young men went to Malolo Lodge to book two rooms for the nights of Friday 4 and Saturday 5 July. One of them did the talking, giving his name as Jessie, and made arrangements at the reception counter with the Lodge manager, State witness No 52, Lawrence Walep. He requested two twin-rooms, one upstairs and one downstairs, for basketball players who were coming the next day from Lae for a tournament in Madang. He paid cash in advance of K1,414.60, which covered the cost of the rooms and three meals. Mr Walep testified that Jessie was very close to him and the lighting was good and he saw him clearly. He remembered his facial features. Jessie and his friends were at the reception area for 20 minutes. He signed the guest registration book. He came back the next night at the same time to collect the room keys and they had a brief conversation. In court Mr Walep identified Jessie as being the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari. Mr Walep was subject to vigorous cross-examination by defence counsel but his evidence was unshaken. Though he had not seen Jacob since July 2008, a little over two years before he gave his evidence, he was adamant that it was him.

86. Mr Walep's account of the time of this incident and his evidence that three men came to make the booking for two rooms for the next two nights were corroborated by the evidence of State witness No 15, Moses Siat, a Malolo Lodge security guard who was present when his boss took the booking. Also significant is that, according to Damien Inanei's record of interview, when Damien went with Jacob to hire the dark blue Toyota Sprinter sedan, BCF 807, Jacob's name was recorded as "Jessie Jacob". Jacob evidently uses the name Jessie sometimes.

87. Applying the Beng principles of identification evidence (outlined earlier in regard to identification evidence of State witness No 1 Timon Kataka) my assessment is that Mr Walep was an honest, impressive and reliable witness. There was no reason to believe, and no suggestion made, that he had any motive to give false evidence. The lighting was good when he observed Jessie. Mr Walep was not emotionally disturbed or physically unwell at the time. He saw Jessie twice within 24 hours. He was talking to him across a counter on the first occasion for an extended period, and saw him again the next night when he came to collect the keys. By Saturday night he came to realise what had happened: the rooms booked by Jessie were used not to accommodate basketballers, but criminals and hostages, and Jessie was probably associated with the criminals. This was a very significant event in any hotel manager's life and it is reasonably expected that he would vividly recall what Jessie looked like. He gave a statement to the police within a week or two of the robbery and the description he provided of Jessie is consistent with the facial features and appearance of the 2nd accused. Mr Walep's identification evidence is accepted. I find that the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, was the person who on the evening of Thursday 3 July booked the two rooms at Malolo Lodge that were used on Friday 4 and Saturday 5 July to detain the bank employees and to accommodate the persons involved in the robbery.

Friday 4 July

88. By the morning of this day the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which had broken down at Gogol Bridge the night before, had made it to the Gum Primary School compound near the house of 6th accused Damien Inanei. Damien went to see a friend who is a mechanic at Ela Motors, Madang, State witness No 10, Jeffery Sana, and asked him if he could come and check the vehicle. Mr Sana replied that he could not leave his workplace but Damien insisted and Mr Sana relented. Damien took him to Gum in a grey Nissan sedan. There were three other people in the vehicle but Mr Sana did not know them. Mr Sana checked the vehicle and told Damien that it should be towed to the workshop but Damien suggested that he get one of his mechanics to come and fix it after hours. Mr Sana was taken back to his workplace. At 5.00 pm another friend of Mr Sana, Yata Gumaira, came to the workplace in his white 15-seater PMV bus, which has the name "PORO" on its front (see table 5, No 12) and told Mr Sana and another mechanic, Sep Wani, that he had come to pick them up. Mr Gumaira took them to Damien's house where they checked the vehicle and discovered that it had a major fuel injector problem that could only be fixed with proper tools at the workshop. Damien told them that he would find a tow truck and bring it in the next day. Mr Sana and Mr Wani got back in Mr Gumaira's bus to be dropped off and as they were leaving they passed a green Toyota Landcruiser. Mr Sana gave no evidence about the registration number of the green Landcruiser but it is noteworthy that his evidence is that Mr Gumaira told him and Mr Wani that he would tell the people in that vehicle about the white Toyota Hilux that they had checked.

89. Other State witnesses – the schoolteachers, Mr Somi and Mrs Kig – also saw a green Toyota Landcruiser 10-seater in the Gum Primary School compound that afternoon. Like Mr Sana's evidence, their evidence did not include its registration number. However, the question naturally arises: was this the green Toyota Landcruiser 10-seater, BCA 247 that was used in the robbery?

90. In the early afternoon that vehicle was picked up at Kekam Hire Car by the same man (identity unknown) who had the previous day booked it for a one-day hire. The court again relies on the evidence of State witness No 14 Andrew Kivung to make that finding. Kekam Hire Car was the place where two days previously 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari and 6th accused Damien Inanei had hired a dark blue Toyota Sprinter sedan, BCF 807. Mr Somi and Mrs Kig also gave evidence of seeing a vehicle of that description in the school compound. Jacob and Damien were friends and they had both attempted in the previous 24 hours to repair the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which, by Friday afternoon was parked outside Damien's house. Those who had travelled from Lae in that vehicle were 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, 5th accused Johnny Gumaira, 7th accused Kito Aso, 11th accused Reuben Micah (who had hired the vehicle) and 14th accused Peter Allan Popo. The majority of that group was at Malolo Lodge on Friday night. The green Toyota Landcruiser was also at Malolo Lodge on Friday night. It was the vehicle used by criminals to kidnap the BSP bank manager and his family members and other bank officers and family members on Friday night and Saturday morning. Those incidents and the sequence of events that followed are set out in detail in part (3) of the findings of fact: kidnapping, detention and robbery. The reasonable inference to draw from this evidence is that the green Toyota Landcruiser seen on Friday afternoon at Gum Primary School was BCA 247, the Kekam Hire Car vehicle that was used by those who committed the robbery.

91. The next important fact to record is that at 7.00 pm on Friday 4 July the three men, one of whom was 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari, who had the previous night made the reservation at Malolo Lodge, returned there to collect the room keys and check in. The manager, Mr Walep, observed that they came in a dark-coloured sedan. They were given, as requested, a downstairs room, No 3, and an upstairs room, No 10. They said that the basketball players for whom the rooms were required were on their way from Lae. They were expected to arrive around midnight. They also told Mr Walep that the players would have a police escort, a special unit from Rabaul which was working in Lae.

92. Mr Walep thought that nothing untoward was happening when around midnight he observed a green Toyota Landcruiser 10-seater come in to the Lodge car park. He saw a number of men in police uniforms meet the three men who had checked into rooms 3 and 10. Mr Walep was working at the bar at the time. He observed that the policemen did not stay long before going out again, leaving the three men, including 'Jessie', with other people in the rooms, who he presumed were basketballers.

93. As to the other accused who were in or around Madang, the 11th accused, Reuben Micah, spent Friday night at the house of his cousin, State witness No 12 Raymond Parangkei, in Bougainvillea Drive. Mr Parangkei, from Manus, is Reuben's cousin. He gave evidence that Reuben had rung him earlier in the day to say that he was coming to Madang for the basketball tournament in which Mr Parangkei was involved. This was corroborated by State witness No 20, Top Songo, also from Manus and also Rueben's cousin. Ms Songo was staying at Mr Parangkei's house at the time. Ms Songo testified that Reuben rang Mr Parangkei's wife that night to say that the vehicle he had used to travel from Lae had broken down at Gum, so Mrs Parangkei had driven her vehicle, a green Honda CRV, to Gum to pick him up and bring him back to the house where he stayed the night.

Saturday 5 July

94. Another attempt was made on Saturday morning to repair the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which was still at the Gum Primary School compound; this time by 11th accused, Reuben Micah. Reuben had stayed the night at Raymond Parangkei's place and around 7.30 am he drove Mrs Parangkei's vehicle to the house of a relative, State witness No 11 Palei Ralewa, a self-employed auto electrician. Mr Ralewa, a Central Province man, is married to a relative of Reuben and Mr Parangkei. Mr Ralewa got a mechanic friend of his and went with Reuben to Gum Primary School. He diagnosed the problem as a faulty fuel injector pump, which would need to be replaced, and told Reuben the only thing to do was to take the vehicle to a safe place, while he searched for a second-hand replacement part. The vehicle was taken to Mr Parangkei's place. However, Mr Ralewa could not find the required part, so Reuben gave him and his friend K70.00 cash and the Hilux was left there. Mr Ralewa and his friend went into town and had breakfast, then went to work. That was about 11.30 am. They had nothing more to do with the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which remained at Mr Parangkei's yard until it was seized by the police several days later, and then eventually returned to its owners, Premium Hire Car, in Lae.

95. Mr Parangkei's evidence is that Reuben stayed all day at his place. He and his wife, as well as Reuben and their cousin, Ms Songo, are Seventh-Day Adventists and it was their Sabbath.

96. Ms Songo's evidence was different: she said that Reuben drove out in Mrs Parangkei's vehicle, with her cousin-sister, Julian, who worked at BSP, Madang, and was also staying at the Parangkei residence at the time. Reuben said they were going to Malmal. He and Julian did not return until about 7.30 pm. Ms Songo testified that Julian had become friends with two Sepik men in recent times. One was called Jacob and the other, a teacher at Gum Primary School, was Damien. She said that she had seen Jacob give large sums of cash to Mr and Mrs Parangkei. She also recalled seeing a person who looked like 1st accused William Nanua Kapris at Mr Parangkei's house.

97. However, of the various accused she referred to in her evidence the only one she could identify was her cousin, the 11th accused, Reuben Micah. This cast doubt on the reliability of her evidence as to Reuben's movements on Saturday. I also take into account Mr Ralewa's evidence that he went back to Mr Parangkei's place at 6.00 pm and Reuben was there. I find that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Reuben was at Malmal (or Malolo Lodge) on Saturday the 5th. It is more likely that he remained at Mr Parangkei's place after returning from Gum.

98. By Saturday afternoon, the robbery had taken place. It occurred in the morning. The white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which had been hired by Reuben Micah and driven from Lae, was still broken down, parked at Mr Parangkei's yard. At 3.30 pm a man walked into Lama Rent-a-Car, Madang, looking for a vehicle to rent. He met the manager, State witness No 13 Richard Tatut, and gave his name as Mark Male. He said he wanted a one-day hire, he had brought basketball players from Lae, their vehicle had a mechanical problem and he needed to go back to Lae to get spare parts for his own vehicle. Mr Tatut observed his features and concluded that he was probably from Central Province or New Ireland Province. He had never seen him before, however, and has not seen him since. Mr Tatut told the man to wait as he would need to check with his wife, who was at church, whether they had a vehicle available. He drove to the SDA Church, talked to his wife, concluded that they had a vehicle, returned and hired out a gold, with stripes, Toyota Hilux, CAO 582 (see table 5, No 6). He and Mr Male signed a rental agreement and Mr Male paid him K2,980.00 cash, all in K2.00 notes.

99. At 4.00 pm Yata Gumaira's 15-seater PMV bus – the one with 'PORO' on its front, which had been used on Friday the 4th to pick up the friend of 6th accused Damien Inanei, State witness No 10, Jeffery Sana – was seen leaving Malolo Lodge. This evidence came from State witness No 15, the security guard, Moses Siat, who said it was being driven a little fast. The 'PORO' bus also rated a mention in the records of interview of 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari and 6th accused Damien Inanei and the confessional statement of 14th accused Peter Allan Popo. I find that the 'PORO' bus was used to ferry some of those who had been guarding the bank employees and their family members at Malolo Lodge, to the DCA area near Madang town. From there they boarded the Toyota Hilux, CAO 582 and headed to Lae.

Sunday 6 to Tuesday 8 July

100. By late Sunday the gold Toyota Hilux, CAO 582, had not been returned to Lama Rent-a-Car and Mr Tatut became concerned. He tried to contact Mr Male on the mobile phone number he had written on the rental agreement but there was no response.

101. At 6.15 am on Monday 7 July, Raymond Parangkei and his wife went to Mr Tatut's house and told Mr Tatut's wife that their gold Toyota Hilux, CAO 582, was with 11th accused Reuben Micah in Lae. Mr Tatut knows Mr Parangkei, who he says used to work for BSP. He has known him for a long time. He also knows Reuben. They are all from Manus. Mr and Mrs Tatut waited anxiously for the return of the vehicle on Monday. When there was no sign of it by 4.30 pm they went to Madang Airport as they had been told Mr Parangkei was there. Mr Parangkei gave them Reuben's mobile phone number. Mr Tatut rang Reuben who said he was at Ela Motors, Lae, and would be leaving soon for Madang. Mr Tatut later spoke on the phone several times to Reuben as he drove towards Madang, the last time being at 11.30 pm when Reuben said he would go straight to Mr Parangkei's place.

102. Mr Parangkei returned the vehicle to Lama Rent-a-Car at 10.30 am on Tuesday the 8th. There were no problems with it, apart from its late return. Mr Tatut identified Reuben in the dock and despite strong cross-examination there is no reason to doubt the veracity of his evidence.

103. I find that the 11th accused, Reuben Micah, drove the gold Toyota Hilux, CAO 582, back from Lae to Madang late on Monday 7 July. As for Mark Male, this was a false name used by someone connected with the robbery. The story that that person gave to Mr Tatut about his own vehicle being broken down and a vehicle being needed to take basketballers back to Lae had a connection with reality in that the vehicle being referred to must have been the broken down white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, hired by Reuben Micah, which was still parked at Mr Parangkei's yard. The 'basketball players from Lae' story was the same information that 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari had given to the mechanic, Paul Kasai, on the night of Thursday the 3rd. It was also the pretext on which Jacob had booked the rooms at Malolo Lodge. Though the 1,490.00 K2.00 notes that Mark Male used as a deposit were not in evidence and there was no direct evidence (such as BSP Madang tags) linking them with the robbery, a reasonable inference to draw, given that the robbery had only occurred six to eight hours earlier, is that they were part of the proceeds of the robbery.

3	KIDNAPPING, DETENTION AND ROBBERY IN MADANG: 4 & 5 JULY

104. These findings are based primarily on the evidence of the four bank officers who were kidnapped and the spouse of one of them:

•	State witness No 16, Jennifer Passingan, the bank's Tellers Supervisor, who held the keys to the cash compartments in the strongrooms – she was kidnapped in the early hours of Saturday 5 July;

•	State witness No 17, Steven Wapikwari, the bank's Team Leader, Customer Services & Enquiries – he was kidnapped on the night of Friday 4 July;

•	State witness No 18 Joseph Passingan, Mrs Passingan's husband – he was kidnapped at the same time as his wife;

•	State witness No 19, Mathias Manowo, the bank manager – he was kidnapped on the night of Friday 4 July;

•	State witness No 21, Paul Salumbia, the bank's Electronic Banking Supervisor – he was detained on Saturday morning during the course of the robbery.

105. I have also taken into account witness statements by others who were kidnapped and detained – three members of the Passingan family and two members of the Manowo family – which are summarised in table 2.

106. Other evidence concerning the kidnapping, detention and robbery is found in the records of interview of 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, and 6th accused, Damien Inanei, and the confessional statement of 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo.

Credibility of State witnesses

107. It was submitted for the defence that the above five State witnesses were not credible. The 1st accused's defence counsel, Mr Dotaona, peppered his challenge to the value of their evidence with the persistent allegation that the kidnapping, detention and robbery resulted from collusion between the criminals and the purported victims, in particular the four bank officers who gave evidence.

108. Some support for this suggestion is found in the inferences that can be drawn from the apparent ease with which the criminals were able to intercept the bank manager on his way home from work and then kidnap and detain him and his family members, together with two other bank officers. The cash compartment keys were left overnight on the desk of the officer responsible for them. When the criminals entered the bank on Saturday morning the keys were there, ready and waiting to be used to open the cash compartments. The robbery could not have been committed unless these three particular officers were involved. The entry into the bank on Saturday morning went off almost without a hitch. Then, another bank officer, who happened to come to work early on Saturday morning, also became involved. The sum of K100,000.00 cash was left with the bank officers as a reward for their co-operation. The actual robbery was an efficient operation. No one put up any resistance and, conveniently, no security guards were on duty at the critical time. The CCTV security cameras were easily disabled. Further support for the submission that it was an inside job came from evidence of the bank's National Operations Manager, State witness No 48, John Brutnall, that an ongoing internal investigation has suggested collusion between the criminals and various suspects within the bank.

109. The problem with this submission is that there was no credible evidence to counterbalance the natural inference arising from the demeanour of the bank witnesses in the witness box that they were honest witnesses, and honest officers, who were caught up innocently in a series of frightening incidents over which they had little control. They were held at gunpoint, some with their family members, over a period of 12 to 22 hours. It was, clearly, a terrifying experience for all of them. I overrule the collusion theory, at least to the extent that it concerns the bank officers who gave evidence.

110. There might have been an element of collusion on the part of other, unidentified, bank officers, but there was little credible evidence of that either. The court has been left with the impression that the robbery would not have occurred had it not been for an extraordinarily deficient security system, which left the bank staff and their family members exposed to the risk of abduction and death and left the branch vulnerable to after-hours incursions.

111. Mr Dotaona submitted that the credibility of evidence of the male bank officers and of Mrs Passingan's husband was adversely affected by their admission that they consumed alcohol during the period of detention. One of them got drunk. This put their bona fides in question. No reasonable person being detained against their will would take liquor, Mr Dotaona contended. And, if they had been genuinely kidnapped, the reliability of their evidence was undermined by their intoxication.

112. I reject those contentions. There was no medical or other evidence that alcohol consumption is inconsistent with stress. I take judicial notice of the fact that different people respond to stress in different ways. One person's reaction might be to drink to calm their nerves. Another person might feel that that is the last thing they want to do. A person who has never consumed alcohol might be driven to drink by stress. A person who drinks habitually might react by not wanting to drink. Given the situation that these men were in, and having heard their evidence and observed their demeanour, I conclude that they were regular and moderate drinkers who felt they wanted or needed a drink in order to relax. They consumed alcohol after it became apparent that their abductors had got what they wanted and were not going to harm them or their families. I find nothing extraordinary or bizarre about their behaviour.

113. They were not all intoxicated. Only one of them consumed enough beer to render him drunk. By his own admission, State witness No 21 Paul Salumbia was under the influence of liquor to a limited extent. He had about six beers. Of all the persons abducted he was the one most traumatised. That is not a criticism of Mr Salumbia, just a statement of fact; a reflection of how one individual reacted to the extraordinary situation he was in. It has no significant effect on the quality of his evidence. His recollection of how and when he was abducted was clear and he did not provide any identification evidence.

114. All five State witnesses who gave evidence about the kidnapping, detention and robbery are therefore regarded as reliable. The court's findings as to the manner in which the kidnapping, detention and robbery occurred are set out below, followed by the court's findings on the identification evidence, which implicates four of the accused.

115. Times have been estimated according to the evidence of the State witnesses. They are inevitably estimates as there were some inconsistencies in the evidence as to precise timing of incidents. The State witnesses were placed in a very stressful situation and it is not reasonably expected that they would remember with exactitude what time different things happened. It is the nature and sequence of the events and which accused, if any, were involved in them which are much more significant. Those are matters on which the court is able to make firm findings.

Friday 4 July, early evening

116. Mr Manowo and Mr Wapikwari were the last to leave the bank. They locked up and left between 6.00 and 6.30 pm in Mr Manowo's official vehicle, a white Nissan Navara dual-cab utility, BBX 845 (see table 5, No 2). Mr Manowo was driving and dropped off Mr Wapikwari at his house in Kalibobo.

Bank manager and family abducted

117. Mr Manowo then headed to his house, in the same part of town. He turned left from Regina Avenue into Coronation Drive and had gone only 50 metres in the direction of Madang Country Club when the driver of a green Toyota 10-seater Landcruiser, BCA 247, tooted him from behind and signalled him to stop. He stopped, as did the 10-seater. Then four men, in police mobile squad (blue camouflage) uniform, got out of the 10-seater, approached him, ordered him to get out of his own vehicle and then get back in, on the back seat. He followed their instructions. They removed his mobile phone. Some of them got in his vehicle and one of them drove it along the North Coast Road. Their leader was a tall man. None of them wore masks. Near R D Tuna they stopped the vehicle and ordered him into the 10-seater. He was blindfolded. At some point the vehicle stopped again – he is not sure where – and he was ordered back into his own vehicle and the blindfold removed. Three of the men had pistols.

118. The vehicles were turned around and they headed back into town. The men told him that they wanted to get money from the safe in the bank. No harm would come to him if he cooperated. They informed him that they would get his family as 'security' and also his assistant manager, Mr Wapikwari. He was ordered to phone his family and drive his own vehicle to his house, which he did.

119. At his house, the men in police uniform went into the front yard and Mr Manowo called to his wife, who was on the phone. She came downstairs and he told her 'what we have seen on TV and read in the newspapers is now happening to us' and that they must do what they were told to do. She was very scared. The men said that they would not hurt anyone provided Mr Manowo's family cooperated, that they were very well organised and that they had more weapons than the police. The men came into the house and ordered Mr Manowo's family (his wife Grace Manowo, his 70-year-old mother-in-law Tanasi, his 10-year-old son, Bethel, and his three-month-old baby boy, Bakire) to pack up and get into the 10-seater, which they did. The 10-seater drove off and at that stage Mr Manowo did not know where his family was being taken.

The 10-seater

120. The green Toyota Landcruiser 10-seater, BCA 247, that the criminals used for the kidnapping, detention and robbery, is the vehicle that had been hired and picked up on Friday afternoon, 4 July, from Kekam Hire Car, the hire arrangement having been made the previous day by an unidentified man. Mr Manowo clearly remembered the vehicle and its registration number and identified it from photos shown to him when he gave evidence.

Second bank officer abducted

121. Mr Manowo was then ordered to ring Mr Wapikwari and tell him that he was coming to pick him up to take him out for a few drinks with friends from Port Moresby. It is evident that the criminals knew that Mr Wapikwari held one of the combinations required to open the strongroom. Mr Manowo was ordered to drive the bank vehicle, with three of the men, to Mr Wapikwari's house.

122. Mr Wapikwari, who had just finished watching two NRL games on television and gone outside to chew betel nut, told his wife that the boss had rung and that they might be going to the Club to meet some clients. It was about 10.30 pm. He had to walk down the street a little. He got into the bank vehicle and sat in the offsider's seat. Mr Manowo drove in the direction of the Country Club and soon after Coastwatchers Hotel, at a dark spot, was ordered to stop on the roadside. Mr Wapikwari was ordered into the back seat and told to hand in his mobile phone. Mr Manowo told him what was happening and that he must cooperate as he was worried about his family.

Bank officers taken to Malolo Lodge

123. Mr Manowo then drove the vehicle, as ordered, through town and back on to the North Coast Road. Near R D Tuna he was ordered to stop and get in the offsider's seat while one of the men drove. The green 10-seater approached and was driven with them up the North Coast Road. The men reiterated that they wanted the money in the bank's safe and that Mr Manowo and Mr Wapikwari must cooperate with them. Mr Manowo and Mr Wapikwari told them that they could open the strongroom for them but the keys to the compartments containing the cash were held by another officer, Jennifer Passingan, who lived somewhere at Sisiak 3, they did not know exactly where.

124. They continued along the road and without warning turned into the Malolo Lodge. It was about 12 midnight. They were taken to room 3 and that is when Mr Manowo was reunited with his family. The fluorescent lights in the room were on and bright. There were two beds, two doors (front and back) and a bathroom. Two men were in the room, un-masked, holding firearms, guarding the occupants.

125. Mr Manowo and his family and Mr Wapikwari were left in the room, guarded, while the men who had kidnapped them went off looking for Mrs Passingan. They were told not to go near the windows. If they did, they would be shot.

Third bank officer, and family, abducted

126. The leader of the criminals and about five other men went in the 10-seater to Sisiak 3, which is between Madang town and Malolo Lodge. They found Mrs Passingan's house (it did not emerge in evidence how they located her house) and went inside, wearing police uniforms, and armed. The occupants of the house were woken up. They told the Passingan family that they were Mobile Squad members from Tomaringa, that they had received a report that the Passingan family was harbouring criminals and that the family would have to come to the station for questioning.

127. Mrs Passingan, her husband, Joseph, plus five other family members, did as they were told and got into the 10-seater, which was driven towards the main road. All their mobile phones were confiscated. When the vehicle turned left at the North Coast Road, instead of turning right in the direction of town, Mrs and Mr Passingan realised that something was wrong. The leader of the criminals – who the others called "Inspector" – then told them what was going on and that the bank manager and his deputy had been kidnapped and they would be going to Malolo Lodge, and Mrs Passingan would have to give them what they wanted; something she was holding on to. The leader told them that his group was a well organised "A" team.

128. They arrived at Malolo Lodge at 3.30 am and the Passingan family was taken into room 3, where the Manowo family and Mr Wapikwari were detained.

The hostages

129. By 3.30 am Saturday the following people had been kidnapped, detained against their will at Malolo Lodge, and become hostages:

1	Michael Manowo, the BSP Madang branch manager;
2	Grace Manowo, Mr Manowo's wife;
3	Bethel Manowo, Mr and Mrs Manowo's 10-year-old son;
4	Bakirie Manowo, Mr and Mrs Manowo's 3-month-old son;
5	Tanasi Morokana, Mr Manowo's 70-year-old mother-in-law;
6	Steven Wapikwari, Team Leader, Customer Services & Enquiries, BSP Madang;
7	Jennifer Passingan, Tellers Supervisor, BSP Madang;
8	Joseph Passingan, Mrs Passingan's husband;
9	Bobola Passingan, Mrs and Mr Passingan's 14-year-old son;
10	Alphonse Passingan, Mrs and Mr Passingan's 12-year-old son;
11	Kerri-Ann Passingan, Mrs and Mr Passingan's 8-year-old daughter;
12	Graham Passingan, Mrs and Mr Passingan's 3-year-old son;
13	Cathy Kawage Passingan, Mrs and Mr Passingan's 26-year-old niece.

130. There was talk of separating the hostages, putting some in room 10 (the other room that the accused had booked), but Mr Passingan pleaded with the leader to let them stay together, and he acceded to that request. The hostages were told that the area was secured by armed men.

Return to Sisiak 3

131. The kidnappers asked Mrs Passingan for the bank keys. She checked her bilum and other things she had and went out to the vehicle to check there but could not find them. So the leader and five of his men took Mrs Passingan and her husband, in the 10-seater, back to Sisiak 3 to look for the keys. The other members of the Passingan family were left at Malolo Lodge.

132. They arrived back at the Passingan house and Mrs Passingan was ordered into the house alone with the leader of the criminals. It is alleged in her police statement that the leader sexually assaulted Mrs Passingan inside the house, however this allegation was not pursued at the trial and the court makes no finding on it.

133. Mrs Passingan could not find the keys inside the house, so the group headed back to Malolo Lodge.

134. On the way, the leader was very angry with Mrs Passingan, accused her of hiding the key and pulled a bullet from his pocket and threatened to use it against her. Mr Passingan also became frustrated with his wife. He told the leader 'she is always busy on Fridays, maybe she left it at the bank'. They proceeded on to Malolo Lodge.

Return to Malolo Lodge

135. As the keys had still not been found, the kidnappers became agitated. One of them – there is conflicting evidence as to which one it was (Mrs Passingan says the leader in her written statement, whereas Mr Manowo says a short man, not the leader of the group) – put a pistol at Mrs Passingan's head and said he would put a hole in her head and kill one of her children and one of Mr Manowo's children if she did not tell them were the keys were. Mr Manowo and Mr Wapikwari agreed with Mr Passingan that maybe the keys had been left at the office.

Trip to bank: 6.00 to 6.30 am Saturday

136. The leader of the kidnappers then decided that the three bank officers (Mr Manowo, Mr Wapikwari and Mrs Passingan) should go into the bank. The other hostages remained in room 3. Mr Passingan was told that if the key was not found one of his children and one of Mr Manowo's children would be taken outside and shot.

137. It was soon after daybreak that they set off. Mr Manowo drove the bank vehicle, and Mr Wapikwari was with him, escorted by some of the criminals. The green 10-seater followed. Mrs Passingan was inside it (the 10-seater), with the leader of the group and other criminals. On the way Mr Manowo was ordered to stop. The criminals had a pair of bolt-cutters in a cloth bag and got it ready to use.

The robbery: 7.00 to 8.00 am Saturday

138. Mr Manowo drove to the back gate of the bank, in Balam Street, near the bookmakers shop, arriving at around 7.00 am. The 10-seater was driven past the bank and put in a holding pattern, driving around the streets near the Country Club.

139. There were no security guards on duty at the bank. That was the normal practice at the time. The only guard was in the ATM lobby, which is next to the bank. Mr Manowo used his key to unlock the gate. He parked in the normal car-park, then got out of the vehicle. He opened the outer door to the bank – the staff entry door – with his swipe card. He pressed the button to open the last door. The building was thus disarmed. He entered the bank with the two other bank officers, escorted by three of the criminals, who were armed. He went straight to Mrs Passingan's work station and found the keys underneath the laplap covering her computer.

140. One of the men made a phone call to "the Inspector" to say that the keys had been located. A similar phone call was made to the guards in room 3, who conveyed the news to Mr Passingan.

141. The 10-seater was driven back to the bank. On the way the Inspector phoned to someone who was at the Best Buy Supermarket and told them to buy him a pair of trousers. The 10-seater stopped briefly at Best Buy, where the leader changed trousers. Mr Manowo was instructed to go outside and open the gate, to allow the 10-seater to come in. He did so.

142. By the time the 10-seater came to the bank the leader and the other criminals had removed their police uniforms and were wearing civilian clothing. In total, there were about ten criminals present at the bank.

143. Inside the bank, Mr Manowo and Mr Wapikwari spun their respective combinations on the strongroom door (which had a dual-combination lock). Mrs Passingan went inside and opened some of the money compartments, in which the tellers' cash is locked. Combinations to the strongroom door were held by Mr Manowo and Mr Wapikwari and two other bank officers, but they did not have access to the cash compartments. Keys were required to open the cash compartments and only Team Leaders, such as Mrs Passingan, held them.

144. Mrs Passingan did not have keys to all of them and for those ones the criminals used their bolt-cutters. While some criminals were in the strongroom making sure that the cash compartments were being opened, others set about the task of taking the cash out of the compartments and putting it into various receptacles (eg bags and laplaps) and loading it into the 10-seater.

Fourth bank officer taken hostage

145. While that was happening the criminals saw on the CCTV what looked like another bank officer who had come into work. He was at the ATM lobby. It was the Electronic Banking Supervisor, Paul Salumbia. Mr Manowo was told to go outside and bring him in, which he did. He told Mr Salumbia not to do anything silly. Mr Manowo, in his evidence, said that it was normal for Mr Salumbia to come to the bank on Saturday mornings due to the nature of his work. It does not happen anymore, however.

Cash removed

146. The criminals continued removing cash from the strongroom. It took them 30 minutes to an hour. When they had emptied the strongroom of about K2.4 million and substantial amounts of foreign currencies, the bank officers were ordered back into the vehicles.

147. The criminals removed the base for the CCTV security system and took it away with them. There was no back-up system in place. Mrs Passingan and Mr Salumbia were sent off in the 10-seater.

148. Mr Manowo and Mr Wapikwari were in the bank vehicle and were preparing, under instructions from their criminal escorts, to depart when they were confronted by Mr Wapikwari's wife who was waiting outside the gate. She was upset that Mr Wapikwari had not come home and accused him of being out all night drinking. Mr Manowo calmed her down by saying that everything would be OK and he would get Mr Wapikwari back to the house soon. By this time it was about 8.00 am.

Trip back to Malolo Lodge

149. Mr Manowo drove the bank vehicle through town along Modilon Road and was instructed to pull in behind the 10-seater, which was refuelling at the Mobil Handymart service station. He did so but there was no fuel left so they backtracked to the Sea Breeze service station. The criminals gave Mr Manowo K50.00 and the bank vehicle was refuelled there, as the 10-seater waited for them. The Inspector rang the guards in room 3 and the phone was passed to Mr Passingan and the Inspector told him not to worry anymore, they were coming back. Both vehicles were then driven back to Malolo Lodge and the bank officers were escorted back into room 3. By that time it was late morning.

150. Mr Manowo did not observe any police vehicles before, during or after the robbery.

Detention of hostages during Saturday

151. The criminals warned the hostages that whatever happened they must never identify any of them in a police parade if they are captured, or they would come back in 10 or 20 years or whatever time it took and harm them.

152. The criminals brought four bundles of K25,000.00 cash into room 3 and said it was for the bank officers as they had co-operated and the mission had been successful. The leader told them they were free to use it how they wanted to and that they would be released at 5.00 pm, as his group needed time to sort out the money.

153. Those who had kept guard over them remained in the room but the criminals who had gone into the bank left and did not return. That was around lunchtime. Food and drinks were brought into the room during the course of the day but the bank officers and their family members were not permitted to leave.

154.	One of the guards was aggressive in his attitude but the other was less severe and even assisted Mrs Manowo when her baby was crying, and let her go outside for a short time to comfort the baby.

155. None of the hostages was physically harmed at Malolo Lodge or in the vehicles or at the bank. They were permitted to use the toilet and shower when they wanted to.

Guards leave room: 5.00 pm Saturday

156. At 5.00 pm the two guards left the room but told the hostages that the time for their release was put back to 7.00 pm and reminded them that if anyone put their head outside they would be shot. There was an element of inconsistency in the evidence of the State witnesses about the time that the guards left room 3. Mr Manowo said it was 5.00 pm, Mrs Passingan said 7.00 pm. The inconsistency is insignificant. It was late afternoon that the guards left.

Contact between hostages and Malolo Lodge staff: 7.30 pm Saturday

157. At about 7.30 pm the Lodge manager's wife noticed that the key was hanging outside the door and knocked. The hostages were still scared but eventually opened the door and had a discussion with the Lodge manager, Mr Walep, and his wife. Mr Manowo and Mr Passingan decided that they should remain at the Lodge. They had been ordered not to contact the police and were wary of the risk that the criminals might set a trap for them on the road into town. They ordered more food and drinks, including beer for the men, and Mr Manowo requested an extra room. They were allotted the neighbouring room, No 4, and Mr Manowo moved his family there. It was decided that, for the time being, the police should not be contacted until it was certain that everything was clear.

One hostage leaves for town: 10.00 pm Saturday

158. It was around this time, early on Saturday night, that Mr Salumbia left room 3, without telling anyone where he was going. He returned several hours later and knocked on the door, but Mr Passingan was angry with him for departing from the agreed arrangement (that none of them would go outside) and refused to let him in and locked him out.

159. Mr Salumbia approached the Lodge manager, Mr Walep, for assistance. Mr Walep organised a lift into town with a friend, Donald Joseph, (the witness summoned, on application by the defence, to give evidence) who happened to be about to leave for town after dropping off a wantok at the Lodge. Mr Joseph's evidence was that it was around 11.00 pm that he left Malolo Lodge, with Mr Salumbia on board. I estimate, however, having regard to Mr Salumbia's evidence and evidence about when the police became aware of the robbery that it was earlier than that: around 10.00 pm. Mr Joseph dropped Mr Salumbia at Madang Teacher's College where Mr Salumbia alerted security guards who then put him in contact with the police.

Police arrive at Malolo Lodge: 3.00 am Sunday

160. The hostages went to sleep but were woken at about 3.00 am on Sunday the 6th by the police. No one in the room had alerted the police. It was Mr Salumbia who did that. The hostages gave the police the cash that the criminals had left with them (minus K100.00 spent on food and drinks). The police returned the hostages to their homes early on Sunday morning.

Identification evidence

161. It was provided by the three other bank officers and by Mrs Passingan's husband, as follows:

•	State witness No 16 Jennifer Passingan identified 1st accused William Nanua Kapris as the leader of the criminal group;

•	State witness No 17 Steven Wapikwari identified 1st accused William Nanua Kapris as the leader of the criminal group and 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari as a member of that group and 7th accused Kito Aso as one of the guards in room 3;

•	State witness No 18 Joseph Passingan identified 1st accused William Nanua Kapris as the leader of the criminal group – the one called "the Inspector" – and 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari as the member of the group who was coming in and going out of room 3 regularly, giving effect to the Inspector's instructions, and 7th accused Kito Aso and 14th accused Peter Allan Popo as the two guards who kept watch over the hostages;

•	State witness No 19 Mathias Manowo identified 1st accused William Nanua Kapris as the leader of the criminal group.

162. Applying the Beng principles of identification evidence (outlined earlier in regard to identification evidence of State witness No 1 Timon Kataka) I have considered the inherent dangers in relying on the correctness of identification to support a conviction and caution myself, as the tribunal of fact, accordingly. Though I have found that these people are honest and convincing witnesses the possibility that they have mistaken the identity of the accused still exists and has been considered. The persons being identified were strangers to the witnesses and the witnesses were in a very stressful situation. I have rejected the proposition that they were complicit in the kidnapping, detention and robbery. Their emotional state was not relaxed. Their evidence was not wholly consistent: Mrs Passingan and Mr Manowo could only identify one member of the criminal group (the 1st accused) whereas Mr Wapikwari identified two others (the 2nd and 7th accused) and Mr Passingan identified three others (the 2nd, 7th and 14th accused). They were identifying people who they last saw a little over two years prior to their giving evidence in court. These factors tend to work against the acceptance of their identification evidence.

163. On the other hand, all witnesses were in a position to observe the members of the criminal group over an extended period. They were not basing their identification on a fleeting glance. Though they were kidnapped when it was dark, they were taken to a hotel room that was well lit. They were not blindfolded at all times and the members of the criminal group were not masked. They were not always prevented from looking at the faces of the criminal group members. The discrepancies in their evidence are explicable, I consider, in terms other than dishonesty or unreliability: they each had different sorts of contact and communication with the members of the criminal group. It is reasonable to expect that each had a different opportunity to observe the facial features of their kidnappers.

164. The defence counsel emphasised that the police did not conduct an identification parade on any of the accused, so this heightened the danger of relying on in-court identification, ie from witness box to the dock. However, there is no rule of law that there must be an identification parade (Taiya Balua v The State (2006) SC878). An in-court identification, after which the witness is subject to cross-examination, is commonly regarded as sufficient provided the court considers the Beng principles, which I am now applying.

165. I conclude that the identification evidence regarding the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, was of very high quality. The evidence was strong and consistent that he was the leader of the criminal group. He was the one in control, making decisions and issuing instructions. His was naturally the easiest face to remember. The police had shown some State witnesses his photo early in the investigation, as he was a prime suspect from the beginning. They identified him then, and identified him again in court.

166. As for the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, the evidence of Mr Wapikwari and Mr Passingan was consistent: he was the one putting William's instructions into effect, performing the role of a second-in-charge. This is consistent with other evidence as to things Jacob did before the robbery, eg arranging hire of vehicles and attempting to get the broken down white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507 fixed, hiring the Malolo Lodge rooms and (according to his record of interview) doing surveillance on the bank manager before William and others arrived from Lae.

167. The 7th accused, Kito Aso, was identified by Mr Wapikwari and Mr Passingan as one of the guards. This is consistent with evidence as to the nature of the compliant role he played from the time he left West New Britain with William. He did what he was told to do by William, who he regards as a big brother.

168. The identification evidence in regard to the 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, was not as strong as for others. He was identified by only one witness, Mr Passingan. Defence counsel Mrs Raymond seized on this when submitting that the identification evidence should be rejected. She pointed out that Mr Passingan's evidence was that he had been drinking heavily since the night of Wednesday 2 July as his team, Queensland, had beaten the Blues in the State of Origin, and this made his recollection of events hazy. I have already taken this into account in assessing the overall quality of his evidence. Judging by his demeanour, Mr Passingan (of mixed Simbu-New Ireland heritage) gave the impression that, though very concerned about the situation he, his wife, family members and their friends were in, he remained composed. He did not panic. I do not consider that his mind was impaired by having been drinking before he was abducted; and I do not consider that his having a few beers towards the end of the ordeal made his identification evidence unreliable.

169. Mrs Raymond also submitted that the identification evidence of Mr Passingan and Mr Wapikwari was tainted by their having been shown photos of suspects during the police investigation. I do not accept that proposition. Showing photos of suspects to witnesses is routine police procedure. Making a positive identification in that way is a useful part of a police investigation, especially if, as here, a witness is able to identify a suspect soon after the event, when the memory is freshest. There is no rule of law or practice that prohibits an in-court identification following an earlier photo identification of a suspect. In fact, it is something that in my opinion, would enhance the value of the identification evidence rather than detract from it. It is also significant that this accused admits in his confessional statement to being part of the criminal group that was at Malolo Lodge. He says that he, amongst others, was assigned the task of keeping watch over the kidnapped group in room 3. I therefore accept the identification evidence regarding Peter Allan Popo.

170. I accordingly find that:

•	the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, was the leader of the group that kidnapped and detained the 14 hostages (the original group of 13 plus Mr Salumbia) and robbed the bank;

•	the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, was present at Malolo Lodge and was a key member of the group – performing the role of 2IC to William – that detained, threatened and kept watch over the hostages;

•	the 7th accused, Kito Aso, was one of the armed guards in room 3, who kept watch over the hostages;

•	the 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, was one of the armed guards in room 3, who kept watch over the hostages.

4	EVENTS IN LAE SOON AFTER THE ROBBERY: 5, 6 & 7 JULY

171. These findings are based primarily on the evidence of State witness Nos 1 Timon Kataka, 2 Ezekiel John Mai, 3 Jane Ezekiel, 4 Ronny Jimbu, 6 Gideon Suivio, 7 Jerry Beglana, 22 Ian Wamo, 23 Dominic Manua, 26 Benjamin Manua, 32 Snr Const George Avali, 34 Akinu Elijah, 36 Frank Vauta and 43 1st Const Chris Miria.

Credibility of State witnesses

172. I have already determined challenges to the credibility of evidence of Mr Kataka, Mr Mai and Ms Mai when making findings of fact as to events in Lae prior to the robbery. They are each regarded as reliable witnesses despite evidence that they received some of the proceeds of the robbery. To the extent that they may be regarded as accomplices of those who committed the robbery I again caution myself of the risk of relying on their evidence. I have examined their demeanour and regard their evidence as reliable for the purpose of making findings of fact as to what happened in Lae soon after the robbery.

173. I make the same assessment of the reliability of other State witnesses, including No 22 Ian Wamo who, it is clear, also received some of the proceeds of the robbery. He benefited substantially, something that he did not make clear until he was cross-examined, but that does not taint his evidence to the extent that it should be disregarded. I find that, though at one stage of the police investigation, he was a suspect (as his room at his parents' house was used to count the proceeds of the robbery) he was not an accomplice. He became involved fortuitously, after the robbery, as he was contacted by a friend, 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari, who asked to come to his house. However, if I am wrong in drawing that conclusion and Mr Wamo is an accomplice I caution myself, in accordance with the principles on accomplice evidence (outlined earlier in the assessment of the evidence of State witness No 1, Timon Kataka) of the danger involved in convicting or making a finding of fact adverse to any of the accused based on his testimony, particularly those parts of it that are uncorroborated. I also take into account that Mr Wamo was cross-examined vigorously by three defence counsel. Having assessed his demeanour in the witness box I consider that his credibility as a witness remained intact and that his evidence is reliable.

174. Other evidence as to events in Lae soon after the robbery is found in the records of interview of 6th accused, Damien Inanei, and 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka, and the confessional statement of 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo.

175. The court's findings as to what happened in Lae soon after the robbery are as follows.

Saturday 5 July

The missing vehicle: white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507

176. At 4.00 pm State witness No 7, Jerry Beglana, had just arrived home from church when 11th accused, Reuben Micah, rang and said that he was in Madang and had a problem with the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which he had hired, through Mr Beglana, from Premium Hire Car. Reuben told him that there was a problem with the fuel injector, that he would get a mechanic in Madang to fix it and not to worry. Mr Beglana was concerned about the vehicle but knew Reuben very well as Reuben was the Lae District Youth Coordinator for the SDA Mission and they had been involved together in religious activities. So he accepted Reuben's assurance that the vehicle would be OK.

Hire of Ford Ranger by 8th accused: 6.30 pm

177. In the late afternoon the 8th accused, Joyce Maima, went to Value Inn and arranged to hire a vehicle. Evidence of the transaction came from the Manager of Akel Hire Car, State witness No 34, Akinu Elijah. He identified the accused in court, in evidence that was unchallenged, as the woman who drove a Mitsubishi L200 utility, LAQ 333, to meet him at Value Inn. He said that hers was a familiar face but before this transaction he did not know her name. A rental agreement was filled out in her name. She signed the document and paid a K1,200.00 cash deposit, for a two-day hire. The vehicle she hired was a silver-green Ford Ranger dual-cab utility, BBX 786.

Connection with Manua family of Lae Tech: 8.00 pm to 12 midnight

178. At 8.00 pm 1st accused William Nanua Kapris visited his cousin-brother, State witness No 22, Dominic Manua, at his house at Lae Technical College. Mr Manua is the Lae District Treasurer, a Department of Finance officer. He lives at the College as his wife is a teacher there. He and William are quite close. William would usually visit him if he was in Lae. The last time he had done so was in 2002. 

179. On this occasion William was driving a Ford Ranger dual-cab utility. He had a friend who he introduced to Mr Manua as Collin. William asked Mr Manua to come with them for a drink, so Mr Manua got changed and went with him. They left the campus and had not gone far when they saw Mr Manua's son, State witness No 26, Benjamin Manua, so they picked him up and the group, after stopping to buy two cartons of Export Lager cans ('white cans') went for a drive around town, drinking in the vehicle. Mr Manua Jnr was a final year electrical engineering Unitech student.

180. They went to a house in the Cassowary Road area and William stopped to talk to a man who, according to Mr Manua Snr's evidence, looked like he came from Central Province. A woman who looked like she came from the Highlands got in the vehicle, though she did not drink. They went to the old Lae Airport where a Toyota Hilux utility was driven to their spot. A man called Damien got out, conversed with William, then got into the Ford Ranger, the group returned to the same house in the Cassowary Road area and dropped off the Highlands-looking woman. They then went to the NFA and bought another carton of beer, then headed to Club 69 and parked the vehicle on the road near the gate. William was tired and lay back in the vehicle to rest while Mr Manua Snr and the others drank beer on the roadside. A white Toyota 10-seater Landcruiser approached. Mr Manua Snr observed that it was a Department of Labour vehicle with which he is familiar. The driver, a man he knows as Douglas, got out and greeted him and William, who had gotten up after his rest. This was at about 12 midnight.

Sunday 6 July

1st accused still with Manua family: 12 midnight to 12 midday

181. At 1.00 am William and Mr Manua Snr and Mr Manua Jnr and Damien left the Club 69 precinct in the Ford Ranger. They went to Lae Bakery and bought bread and lamb flaps, then went back to NFA to buy more beer.

182. At 4.00 am they went back to the Manua residence at Lae Tech. Mr Manua Snr woke up his children and instructed them to prepare a meal, which they did. The group then sat under the house eating and drinking and telling stories.

183. At 6.00 am the same Toyota Hilux utility that had been driven to the old Airport drove in. Mr Manua Snr observed that it was gold in colour. William spoke briefly to the occupants and then the vehicle left. After that William and the same group which by then had been with him for ten hours went to Voco Point to buy more beer. Then they returned to the Manua residence and continued drinking. An in-law of the Department of Labour driver, Douglas – the in-law's name is Andrew – came to the house to seek the assistance of Mr Manua Snr. Two of his brothers had been arrested the previous day and were in the Lae police lock-up and he needed transport, so Mr Manua Snr, having got permission from William, drove the Ford Ranger to the police station. The problem was sorted out and Mr Manua Snr dropped off Andrew and returned to his house at Lae Tech.

William checks on dinghy: 8.00 am

184. At 8.00 am the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, went with another man (identity unknown) to Geks Compound to check on the dinghy, which had since 24 June been looked after by State witness No 4, Ronny Jimbu. William gave Mr Jimbu's wife a bundle of K10.00 notes, about K70.00, and left. William had, according to Mr Jimbu's evidence, driven to Geks Compound in a green-grey Mitsubishi L200 utility matching the description of the vehicle in possession of 8th accused, Joyce Maima. I find as a fact that it was Joyce's vehicle that William was driving that morning.

Mitsubishi L200 driven to Manua residence – further movement around Lae: 1.00 pm to evening

185. At 1.00 pm a Mitsubishi L200 utility came into the Manuas' area, driven by the same Highlands-looking woman who the group had picked up and dropped off at a house in the Cassowary Road area. Mr Manua Snr described the vehicle sufficiently in his evidence as:

•	a green-silver Mitsubishi L200 dual-cab utility, LAQ 333 (table 5, No 8) – Mr Manua Snr said he is familiar with the vehicle as it was often parked near Lae Post Office.

Return of Ford Ranger to Akel Hire Car

186. The Highlands-looking woman then drove the Ford Ranger and Mr Manua Snr drove the L200 and they both went to Value Inn where the Ford Ranger was left.

187. Evidence as to the return of the Ford Ranger, which was a hire vehicle, was also given by Akel Hire Car Manager, State witness No 34, Akinu Elijah. He was not present when it was returned but the rental agreement he referred to in his evidence showed that it was returned on Sunday, one day earlier than it was required to be, and that it had done 157 km.

188. Mr Manua Snr then dropped the Highlands-looking woman off at her house in the Cassowary Road area, then returned to his house. Then Douglas drove the white Toyota 10-seater Landcruiser, the Department of Labour vehicle, into the Manua's area. He joined the drinking party. Then he and William got into the L200, while Mr Manua Snr got into the Department of Labour vehicle, and both vehicles were driven back to the Highlands-looking woman's Cassowary Road house. Some men were picked up at that house and driven to another house in the Cassowary Road area.

189. By this time it was about 7.00 pm. Mr Manua Snr had been drinking and driving around town for almost 24 hours and was tired. He parked the vehicle and rested inside it, waiting for a couple of hours for the men who were inside the house. When they had finished whatever they were doing he took them back to the first Cassowary Road house. He then drove them around to various locations, including the Papuan Compound, Top Town, Angau Hospital and Taraka before returning to his house later that night. Meanwhile, Mr Manua Jnr, who had also been drinking and moving around over a long period had stayed back at the house and fallen asleep.

Identification evidence re accused who were with Manua family

190. In court, Mr Manua Snr was asked whether any of the men described in his evidence were in the courtroom. He identified:

•	the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, as his cousin-brother, who came to his house on Saturday night and in whose company he was in for most of the periods until Sunday night;

•	the 6th accused, Damien Inanei, as the man called Damien who came in a Toyota Hilux to meet him and William and others at the old Lae Airport on Saturday night, and in whose company he was in for several hours in the course of Saturday night and Sunday morning – Mr Manua Snr testified that Damien is also his relative and he knew that he was a primary school teacher in Madang.

191. Mr Manua Jnr identified 1st accused William Nanua Kapris as his uncle and 6th accused Damien Inanei as his relative, who is a teacher in Madang. He also identified:

•	the 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, as the man, Collin, who was with William and his father in the Ford Ranger when they picked him up as he was walking near the fire station early on Saturday night – he said he knows Collin as he comes from the same part of East Sepik Province (Yangoru District) and he used to meet him from time to time at East Taraka and chew betel nut with him.

192. Both Mr Manua Snr and Mr Manua Jnr failed to identify the Highlands-looking woman who was picked up and dropped off at a house in the Cassowary Road area and who came to their house in a Mitsubishi L200. However, in light of the evidence about the 8th accused, Joyce Maima, possessing a green-silver Mitsubishi L200 dual-cab utility, LAQ 333 (table 5, No 8), and her hire of a Ford Ranger dual-cab utility from Akel Hire Car late on Saturday afternoon and its return on Sunday to Value Inn, and her living in a house at Gannet Street, in the Cassowary Road area, and that she comes from Eastern Highlands Province, I find that she is the Highlands-looking woman referred to by both Mr Manua Snr and Mr Manua Jnr.

193. Applying the Beng principles of identification evidence (outlined earlier in regard to identification evidence of State witness No 1 Timon Kataka) I have considered the inherent dangers in relying on the correctness of identification to support a conviction and caution myself as the tribunal of fact accordingly. Though I have found that both Mr Manua Snr and Mr Manua Jnr are honest witnesses, the possibility that they have mistaken the identity of the accused still exists and has been considered. However, the two accused that they both identified (William and Damien) are their relatives and that part of their evidence was unchallenged. Mr Manua Jnr's identification of Collin is similarly reliable as he was identifying someone he knew as a friend, or at least an acquaintance. Both witnesses were in a position to observe the accused over an extended period and though both witnesses had been drinking heavily, they were not so intoxicated that their memory of events was obliterated. In his record of interview the 6th accused, Damien Inanei, admits to being in Lae on Saturday night and Sunday but denies being with Mr Manua Snr or Mr Manua Jnr. That denial is unsworn, untested, and vague and I reject it. The identification evidence of both witnesses was of very high quality.

194. There is no evidence that William or anybody else gave Mr Manua Snr or Mr Manua Jnr any cash during the period that they were together.

Findings re connection between accused and Manua family

195. I find that the following accused were in the company of State witness Nos 23 and 26, Dominic Manua and Benjamin Manua, at various locations in Lae as described by them in their evidence, on the night of Saturday 5 July and throughout a large part of Sunday 6 July:

•	the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris;

•	the 3rd accused, Collin Masilo;

•	the 6th accused, Damien Inanei;

•	the 8th accused, Joyce Maima.

196. I find a close connection between William and Joyce as the two vehicles that William was at various times driving were in Joyce's possession and control: the silver-green Ford Ranger dual-cab utility, BBX 786 (table 5, No 1) that Joyce had hired from Akel Hire Car late on Saturday afternoon and the green-silver Mitsubishi L200 dual-cab utility, LAQ 333 (table 5, No 8) that was her personal vehicle, in her capacity as Manager of the Lae branch of Credit Corporation.

Contact between 2nd accused and person at whose house cash was counted: 8.00 am to 5.30 pm

197. Also on Sunday morning, around 8.00 am, the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, made contact with his friend, State witness No 21, Ian Wamo. Mr Wamo lived in Finch Street in the Cassowary Road area not far away from Jacob's place in Hawk Street and the residence of 8th accused Joyce Maima, in Gannet Street, and 14th accused Peter Allan Popo, in Eagle Street. Mr Wamo is a young East Sepik/West New Britain man who was a cartography student in his final year at Unitech. Jacob rang Mr Wamo when he was at Foodmart and asked him to go to his house in Finch Street and wait for him there. Jacob did not tell him the purpose of his visit, which, it transpires, was to find a safe place to bring 1st accused William Nanua Kapris and others to so that the proceeds of the robbery, which had been brought down from Madang, could be counted.

198. Mr Wamo went home and waited for Jacob who eventually turned up at 2.00 pm. He was dropped off in a gold Toyota Hilux utility (see table 5, No 5). Jacob told him to watch out for two vehicles that would be coming, and around 5.30 pm, two vehicles did indeed arrive and were driven into the yard. Mr Wamo described them sufficiently in his evidence as:

•	a white Toyota 10-seater Landcruiser, ZGC 125 (table 5, No 13), the Department of Labour vehicle which had the night before been at the residence at Lae Tech of State witness Nos 23 and 26, Dominic Manua and Benjamin Manua, and been used to ferry them and 1st accused William Nanua Kapris and others around town drinking alcohol at various locations during the night; and

•	a green-silver Mitsubishi L200 dual-cab utility, LAQ 333 (table 5, No 8), the vehicle belonging to 8th accused Joyce Maima.

Events re counting of cash at house in Finch Street: 5.30 pm to 10.00 pm

199. A well-built man came out of the L200 and asked Mr Wamo who was in the house. Mr Wamo explained that only his two younger sisters were upstairs, and his parents had gone to Madang. The well-built man told him to tell his sisters to remain indoors, which he did. The vehicles went away. Then the well-built man instructed the other men – in total there were eight to ten – who had come in the 10-seater to bring their cargo in to Mr Wamo's room in the garage. The cargo was a number of boxes (Mr Wamo cannot recall how many) that contained cash. The well-built man left in the L200 and the others set about counting the cash. Then someone drove the 10-seater out. Mr Wamo does not know how much cash there was. He was not involved in the counting. It was a lot, however, more than he had ever seen in his life. At 7.00 pm his parents returned from Madang, and around the same time the white 10-seater came back. His parents asked him 'whose vehicle is that?' He told them that it was his friends' vehicle and that 'they had come to do some work'. His parents were unconcerned and soon afterwards his father left and went to his office to do some work. Then the L200 came back. It was driven by the well-built man who asked for some cash and it was given to him by Jacob. Then the well-built man drove off in the L200.

200. The counting went on until 10.00 pm and the cash was packed back into the boxes. Then two other vehicles came to the front gate. Mr Wamo described them sufficiently in his evidence as:

•	a white Mazda Bravo utility, LAN 922 (table 5, No 6), the vehicle belonging to 11th accused Reuben Micah, which was driven by a well-built man, who, Mr Wamo said, he did not know, but looked like he came from Central or Manus Provinces;

•	a grey Mitsubishi Lancer sedan, LAP 538, the vehicle belonging to the father of 14th accused Peter Allan Popo, which was driven by a fellow who, Mr Wamo, said, lives in Eagle Street and is often seen driving it.

201. Mr Wamo assisted Jacob and the other men load the boxes on to the Mazda. Then most of the men got into the vehicles and left. One stayed behind. His identity is not clear. He was not mentioned by Mr Wamo in examination-in-chief or in his police statement. His role only came to light in cross-examination by Mr Mwawesi when Mr Wamo admitted that – despite denying it in his police statement – he was given K7,000.00 cash for allowing his room to be used as a counting centre. Mr Wamo said he came to know the man as Thomas. He is not one of the accused, Mr Wamo said. They developed a good friendship. Thomas said he was new to Lae and wanted somewhere to stay. So that night they went out on the town together and Thomas ended up staying with Mr Wamo for a couple of weeks. Mr Wamo ran errands for him, including going to the post office to do SMK transactions to Kokopo. Thomas left him with a bag containing a lot of cash, in the order of K70,000.00 to K100,000.00. He gave some of it to his girlfriend and relatives and spent some of it. Later, a couple of other men came to pick up the bag.

Identification evidence re accused at the counting centre

202. In court, Mr Wamo was asked whether any of the men described in his evidence were in the courtroom. He identified:

•	the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, as the well-built man who had come in the green-silver Mitsubishi L200 and given instructions to the other men;

•	the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, as his friend, Jacob, who had brought the men to his house;

•	the 11th accused, Reuben Micah, as the well-built Central or Manus man who had driven the white Mazda Bravo to his house, on to which vehicle the cash boxes were loaded.

203. Mr Wamo failed to identify the driver of the grey Mitsubishi Lancer, even though in his written police statement he referred to 14th accused Peter Allan Popo as the driver of the other vehicle that was driven in with the Mazda Bravo.

204. Applying the Beng principles of identification evidence (outlined earlier in regard to identification evidence of State witness No 1 Timon Kataka) I have considered the inherent dangers in relying on the correctness of identification to support a conviction and caution myself as the tribunal of fact accordingly. Though I have found that Mr Wamo is an honest witness, the possibility that he has mistaken the identity of the accused still exists and has been considered. Two of the persons being identified were strangers to the witness. The events occurred when it was dark and the witness was in a very strange and to some extent stressful situation. He was identifying two people who he last saw a little over two years prior to giving evidence in court. These factors tend to work against the acceptance of his identification evidence.

205. On the other hand, he was in a position to observe the men who came to his house over an extended period. He was not basing his identification on a fleeting glance. He said that the first well-built man he described was the man giving instructions to the other men about what had to be done; and it would seem natural for an observer's attention to be focussed on such a person. As to the other well-built man who came in the Mazda Bravo, he is quite a tall man with a strong build, and this would tend, I consider, to make him conspicuous in a group and susceptible to subsequent identification.

206. I conclude that the identification evidence regarding the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, was of high quality. The evidence was strong and consistent that he was the leader of the group of men who came to the counting centre. He was the one in control, making decisions and issuing instructions.

207. As for the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, he was a good friend of the witness, and Mr Wamo's identification of him as the person who arranged for the use of his room as the counting centre is of very high quality.

208. The identification of the 11th accused, Reuben Micah, was also of high quality. In his case the witness matched the person being identified with the vehicle – the Mazda Bravo, LAN 922 – that belonged to him.

Findings re accused present at counting centre

209. I find that the following accused were at various times at the house of State witness No 22, Ian Wamo, in Finch Street, for the purpose of counting a large amount of cash, which was clearly the proceeds of the robbery that had been committed the previous day:

•	the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris;

•	the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari; and

•	the 11th accused, Reuben Micah.

14th accused in Lae

210. In the voir dire hearing that resulted in rejection of the records of interview of 14th accused Peter Allan Popo the court heard evidence of his movements in Lae on Sunday 6 and Monday 7 July, and what happened to him when, and after, he was arrested (The State v William Kapris & Ors (2010) N4139). He was mistreated and tortured by the police. Evidence in the voir dire is evidence in the trial unless excluded by the court (R v Amo and Amura [1963] PNGLR 22; The State v Kusap Kei Kuya [1983] PNGLR 263; The State v Raphael Walimini (2004) N2627). So, I have assessed that evidence, together with the accused's confessional statement (table 4, No 14), in order to arrive at findings of fact concerning him. I reiterate that, though admitted into evidence without challenge, the confessional statement has been treated with caution, in view of the circumstances in which it was obtained. Having said that, it must be observed that most of what the accused states in it has been corroborated by other evidence.

211. I find that Peter was given a substantial amount of cash, approximately K50,000.00, on Sunday afternoon, being part of the proceeds of the robbery. He was one of the guards at Malolo Lodge. He had played a key role in the detention of the hostages and therefore the successful commission of the robbery. It stands to reason that he would have been given this sort of sum as payment for his services. There are reasonable grounds on which to believe that he was given the money at the residence of State witness No 22, Ian Wamo, when the cash was counted. However, there was no positive identification evidence that put him there at the relevant time so I refrain from making findings on where he received the cash and who gave it to him. I base the finding that he received about K50,000.00 on Sunday afternoon on his confessional statement and on the clear evidence that he was caught by police with K28,733.00 cash, with BSP tags attached, the next morning (table 6, No 2).
 
212. At some time in the afternoon Peter picked up his friend, defence witness No 2 in the voir dire hearing, Stanna Koi. They went to Phil's Motel for a drinking session, and joined up with State witness No 36, Frank Vauta, a driver who worked for National Catering Services at the Harmony Gold mine who was in Lae for a field break. Peter booked a room and he and Mr Koi and Mr Vauta drank in the room, accompanied by a handful of other people, throughout Sunday night and into the early hours of Monday morning.

Monday 7 July

14th accused arrested

213. The police at NCIU in Lae had received reports on Saturday night, 5 July, of the robbery, and were alert to the probability that some of the criminals had come from Madang to Lae. Early on Monday morning the police received information that there were persons behaving suspiciously at Phil's Motel, so a squad went there, led by Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban. They apprehended Mr Koi, and then went after the 14th accused, Peter Allan Popo, who had left just before the police arrived and gone to his parents' house in Eagle Street. They arrested Peter outside the house as he was driving out in his father's grey Mitsubishi Lancer sedan, LAP 538 (table 5, No 7). They found K28,733.00 cash, with BSP tags attached, and various sums of foreign currency and other items in his possession (table 6, No 2).

Driver retrieves Department of Labour vehicle: 8.00 am

214. At 8.00 am the driver, Douglas, went to the Manua residence at Lae Tech to pick up the Department of Labour vehicle, which had been parked there after the end of Sunday's drinking party. Mr Manua Snr went for a drive (it is not clear whether he was on his way to work) and bought a newspaper and saw that the BSP Madang robbery was the front-page story. It was then that it dawned on him that his cousin-brother, 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, and the people he had been fraternising with and driving around the previous day may well have been involved in the robbery.

4th accused arrested

215. The 4th accused, Bonny Solomon, was arrested by police at Unitech with K1,250.00 cash, in K50.00 notes, plus K14.00, in K2.00 notes, in his possession. The police also went to the house of a relative of the accused and seized K200.00 in K2.00 notes. In his unsworn statement from the dock the accused, who lives in Madang, said that he had come to Lae the previous day to sell betel nut. He sold seven bags for K200.00 each. This is not a very convincing explanation but I find insufficient evidence to support a finding that the cash found on the accused was part of the proceeds of the robbery.

Events at Two Mile, Block 8: distribution of proceeds of robbery

216. Late in the morning of Monday 7 July there was a gathering at a residence in Two Mile, Block 8, occupied by Benny Mai (the father of State witness No 2, Ezekiel John Mai, and the grandfather of State witness No 3, Jane Ezekiel). The purpose of the gathering was evidently for the first accused, William Nanua Kapris, he being the leader of the group which committed the robbery, to distribute the proceeds of the robbery to some of those who had provided assistance of some sort to those who had committed the robbery. There is sufficient evidence to find that those who went to Benny Mai's residence and met William there included:

•	Timon Kataka, who was given at least K6,000.00 cash in K20.00 notes by William;

•	Ezekiel John Mai, who was given at least K5,000.00 cash;

•	Jane Ezekiel, who was given K1,000.00 by Isabella;

•	12th accused, Isabella Kivare, who took Jane Ezekiel there after shouting her on a shopping spree for clothes in town – there is no direct evidence, however, that Isabella received any cash at this gathering;

•	13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka – there is no direct evidence, however, that Elvis received any cash at this gathering, and he maintains in his record of interview (see table 4, No 13) that though others got their share he did not get his share.

217. According to the evidence of Mr Kataka, those who were not present included 10th accused, Bobby Selan, and 11th accused, Reuben Micah.

218. When William gave Mr Kataka the cash he told him 'you can go', which Mr Kataka took to mean that he should go home to Finschhafen (which he did, the next day). William also told Mr Kataka that he would be going to Port Moresby with 'the Skipper', referring to the 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka. This was a true statement of intent as William, Elvis and others attempted to leave Lae that afternoon, and eventually left the next morning, Tuesday 8 July.

Retrieval of outboard motor

219. During the course of this day arrangements were made to retrieve the 40-hp outboard motor for the dinghy on which William and others had come from West New Britain to Lae in late June. The motor had been kept at the house of State witness No 6, Gideon Suivio, for safekeeping. According to Mr Suivio's evidence a Finschhafen man – probably Mr Kataka – came to his office, gave him K200.00 cash, and said that "William" wanted a vehicle to ferry the fuel and the outboard motor to Geks Compound. So he got two 44-gallon drums of Zoom at Nuigini Oil and returned to the office with some of his workmen after securing the use of a Canter truck.

220. When he got back William and three other men (who looked as if they were from Siassi or West New Britain) were waiting outside the office. He thought that they might be the owners of the motor. William and his three friends, one of whom, I find, (according to his record of interview, see table 4, No 13) was the 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka, got on the truck. They drove to his house and then carried the motor out and took it away. Mr Suivio stayed at home while the driver drove off with William and his three friends and Mr Suivio's workmen. That was the last that Mr Suivio saw of the outboard motor.

Timon Kataka returns to 2nd Street

221. After the gathering at the house of his father, Benny Mai, Ezekiel John Mai drove Mr Kataka to town and dropped him off at Bobby Selan's place in 2nd Street, where Mr Kataka stayed his last night.

12th accused leaves the Mai house

222. The 12th accused Isabella Kivare, who had by then been staying at Mr Mai's house for several weeks, asked Mr Mai to arrange a vehicle and she gave him K550.00 cash (for vehicle hire + rent). She was dropped off at a flat in Eriku.

Aborted departure from Geks Compound

223. In the late afternoon William and others made an attempt to leave Lae, from Geks Compound, in the dinghy, skippered by Elvis, in which they had come from West New Britain in late June. They got no further than the mouth of the Bumbu River. The sea was rough, the dinghy almost capsized and they quickly returned to shore. Mr Jimbu and his family looked after them when they returned to shore wet and bedraggled. They stayed with Mr Jimbu that night and made a successful departure the next morning.

5	EVENTS AFTER 7 JULY 2008

224. These findings are based primarily on the evidence of State witness Nos 1 Timon Kataka, 24 Adam Orosombo, 27 Richard Uvia, 28 Ruth Kombe, 30 Fotha Zamang, 32 Snr Const George Avali, 33 Nancy Gumaira, 35 Rumba Arafi, 37 Snr Sgt James Luan, 38 1st Const Kisofe Ahuma, 39 Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban, 40 Const Manu Pulei, 41 Sgt Allan Loloea, 42 Snr Const Leo Kaikas, 44 1st Const Noel Tumpi, 45 Chf Sgt Russell Egimbari, 46 Snr Sgt Steven Yalamu, 47 Supt Peter Guinness, 48 John Brutnall, 49 Chf Sgt Wilsen Tapi, 50 1st Const Jeffery Gellam, 51 Sgt Robert Volo, 53 Chf Sgt Uluman Hanlau, 55 Sgt Elisha Tange, 56 Terry Apollos, 57 Snr Const Remie Jogioba and 60 Junet Guliva. All are regarded as reliable witnesses.

225. Other evidence as to events after 7 July is found in the records of interview of the 9th accused, Kia Warren, and the 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka.

226. The court's findings as to what happened after 7 July are as follows.
 
Tuesday 8 July

227. It was on this morning that State witness No 1, Timon Kataka, left Lae in a motorised dinghy for Finschhafen. He was arrested by police on arrival, with most of the K6,000.00 cash that 1st accused William Nanua Kapris had given him the day before and a 10-pack of marijuana rolls in his possession.

228. The 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, also left Lae on the morning of Tuesday 8 July, in the dinghy skippered by 13th accused, Elvis Bala Aka. Also in the dinghy was the 7th accused, Kito Aso, and one or two others. They left Geks Compound at daybreak on a journey that would bring them to a village in Central Province five days later, from where they drove to Port Moresby. Evidence of this journey is in Elvis's record of interview (table 4, No 14). On 8 July they travelled to a village near Popondetta, Oro Province, where they stayed the night.

Wednesday 9 July

229. William, Kito and Elvis left the village near Popondetta, called into Oro Bay for fuel then got as far as a village on East Cape, Milne Bay Province where they stayed the night.

Thursday 10 July

230. William, Kito and Elvis took a boy and a man from East Cape to show them the way, then arrived at Alotau at 3.00 pm. William went into town to buy a mobile phone. They then went to Logea Island, near Samarai, and stayed the night.

231. Meanwhile back in Lae the 11th accused, Reuben Micah, rang State witness No 7, Jerry Beglana, the Premium Hire Car manager from whom he had hired the white Toyota Hilux LAU 507 (table 5, No 11), which had broken down on the way to Madang on 4 July. Reuben said that he was at Markham Road at a snack bar so Mr Beglana went there and asked him where LAU 507 was. Reuben replied that it was still in Madang but he was arranging for its fuel injector to be fixed. The vehicle, however, remained in Madang for some time and Reuben did not return it. A Premium Hire Car mechanic made a trip to Madang and the vehicle was towed back to Lae where it was repaired.

232. Also in Lae on this day the 10th accused, Bobby Selan, arranged an SMK transaction through Post PNG, from Lae to Port Moresby. The amount sent was approximately K950.00. Evidence of the transaction was given by Bobby's friends, State witness Nos 27 and 35, Richard Uvia and Rumba Arafi.

Friday 11 July

233. William, Kito and Elvis left Logea Island and went to Samarai, where they purchased fuel. They then left for Abau, Central Province, and stayed in a village there that night.

Saturday 12 July

234. William, Kito and Elvis took the boat into a river at Baramata, Central Province, where a white Toyota Landcruiser came to meet them. The cargo from the boat was transferred to the vehicle. William got into the vehicle with a Papuan rasta man, a mixed-race woman and a couple of other boys from the boat, including Kito. Five village boys then got onto the boat with Elvis and they travelled by sea in the direction of Port Moresby, and came ashore at Kapari. A blue Isuzu truck, with the name "Nice Body" was there to meet them. They loaded the boat and motor on the truck and joined up with the Landcruiser, which William was driving, and went in convoy to Port Moresby, arriving at 6.00 pm. The boat and motor were left at Tamara Player Tomscoll's house at Mirigini Avenue, Boroko.

Thursday 17 July

235. The police received information that William was in Central Province so they set up a roadblock at Gomore Bridge. State witness No 56, Sgt Terry Apollos, a senior MOCIT officer, was in charge of the operation. At 1.00 am a convoy of three vehicles approached and was ordered by the police to stop. William was the driver of one of the vehicles. Sgt Apollos shot him four times in the leg in the process of arresting him. He was searched and found to have approximately K1,200.00 in his possession. He was taken to Port Moresby General Hospital for treatment. Kito and Elvis were also arrested in this operation, as well as a number of other suspects.

236. Later that morning the police traced ownership of two of the vehicles to a hire car firm and discovered that they had been hired by a resident of Mirigini Avenue, Boroko, Tamara Player Tomscoll. They tracked her down, questioned her and seized a dinghy and outboard motor from her yard. Also seized from her house in the late afternoon were:

•	bags of cash, with BSP Madang tags attached (the cash was counted later that day by State witness No 57, Snr Const Remie Jogioba, as totalling K127,160.00);

•	two factory-made pistols;

•	three sets of mobile squad camouflage uniforms, of Inspector rank;

•	42 live bullets;

•	a rainbow bag (table 6, No 8).

237. When Ms Tomscoll was questioned she said that the boat and motor and other items seized by police had been left at her house by William who had given her and another woman K5,000.00 cash for their assistance.

238. I find that the boat and motor was the same boat and motor that William and others had used to travel from West New Britain to Lae in late June, and from Lae to Central Province in early July. As for the cash, this was clearly part of the proceeds of the robbery. The pistols, uniforms, bullets and bag were items used for the purposes of the robbery and had been brought as cargo on the boat on the trip to Central Province.

Tuesday 12 August

239. At 5.00 am there was a police raid of the house of 8th accused, Joyce Maima. Joyce and her boyfriend, 5th accused Johnny Gumaira, were arrested. During a search of the house the police found a bag containing K4,600.00 cash, with BSP Madang tags attached (table 6, No 4). The cash was clearly part of the proceeds of the robbery.

Friday 15 August

240. On this day there was another major breakthrough in the police investigation. A camouflage suitcase containing K129,500.00 cash, with BSP Madang tags attached, was seized from relatives of 5th accused Johnny Gumaira at Igam settlement, Lae (table 6, No 5). The court heard evidence from the accused's relatives and police witnesses regarding the suitcase and its contents. The accused's relatives, summoned to give evidence, were his cousin-sisters, State witness Nos 28 and 30, Ruth Kombe and Fotha Zamang; his elder sister, State witness No 33, Nancy Gumaira; and his niece, State witness No 60, Junet Guliva.

241. I find that on Monday 11 August Johnny left the padlocked suitcase with Junet (who is Nancy's daughter) in her house in Lae, telling her that he would leave his 'bag of clothes' in their house. On Tuesday 12 August the police conducted a raid on the house of another of Johnny's sisters, Karen, and Nancy, who had come to know of the presence of the suitcase in her house, decided that the suitcase should be removed. She instructed Junet to take it to Ruth at her workplace, which she did. Ruth then took the suitcase to her house at Igam settlement and gave it to her sister-in-law, Dorcas, who told her mother, Fotha, about it. Fotha decided that it should be buried. On Friday 15 August the police raided the settlement as Fotha was trying to dig up the suitcase and move it to another place. It was still locked when seized by the police. I find that the contents of the suitcase are part of the proceeds of the robbery. The suitcase was padlocked at all material times and I reject any suggestion that the cash that was inside it was planted by the police or any other person.

242.	In his unsworn statement from the dock Johnny claimed that the suitcase had been given to him, to look after, by a friend who had come from Port Moresby to Lae. He did not know why the friend had come to Lae or what was in the suitcase, but the friend gave him K5,000.00 cash and he (Johnny) spent about K400.00 on beer. This explanation (which seeks to explain the suitcase containing K129,500.00 and the K4,600.00 cash found in his girlfriend, 8th accused, Joyce Maima's bedroom) is vague, untested and unconvincing.

243. I find that a little over a month after the robbery the 5th accused, Johnny Gumaira, had in his possession and control a locked suitcase containing K129,500.00, being part of the proceeds of the robbery.

Sunday 14 September

244. The 3rd accused, Collin Masilo, surrendered to the police on this day. He made an arrangement, using 10th accused Bobby Selan as a go-between, to surrender to Snr Insp Chris Kunyanban who came, alone, to Collin's house in East Taraka, to pick him up. Collin made a confessional statement on 18 September but it was refused admission into evidence following a voir dire on the grounds that it was made involuntarily and had been obtained unfairly (table 3, No 4). Collin gave evidence that he had, after finding out that his house had been raided on 8 July, gone into hiding in the bush for a couple of months.

Thursday 2 October

245. The cash that had been seized at Tamara Player Tomscoll's house in Boroko on 17 July was on 2 October delivered by police to BSP's National Operations Manager, State witness No 48, John Brutnall, at BSP's head office in Port Moresby (table 6, No 7). The amount handed over was K161,800.00. There was thus a discrepancy of K34,640.00 between that amount and the amount of cash (K127,160.00) counted by the MOCIT exhibits officer, State witness No 57, Snr Const Remie Jogioba, at Boroko police station on 17 July. I find that Snr Const Jogioba miscounted the cash, and that all the cash handed over to BSP on 2 October (still with BSP Madang tags attached) was part of the proceeds of the robbery.

Tuesday 4 November

246. On this day there was a police operation at Ramu that resulted in 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari being arrested and shot. K6,122.00 cash, in a BSP cloth bag, was seized from his house. I find that this cash was part of the proceeds of the robbery.

PART C: THE OFFENCES AND THEIR ELEMENTS

The first indictment

Armed robbery

247. Each of the 14 accused is charged under count 2 on the first indictment with armed robbery under Sections 386(1) and (2)(a) and (b) (the offence of robbery) of the Criminal Code, which state:

(1)	A person who commits robbery is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(2)	If a person charged with an offence against Subsection (1)—

(a)	is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or

(b)	is in company with one or more other persons … 

he is liable subject to Section 19, to imprisonment for life.

248. The elements to be proven are that:

•	the offence of robbery was committed (this is proven, under Section 384, by proof that some 'thing' was stolen, that actual violence was used or threatened, in order to obtain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to it being stolen, and that violence was used or threatened at, immediately before or immediately after, the time of stealing the thing); and

•	the robber (a) was armed or (b) was in company with at least one other person (The State v Boria Hanaio, Bula Hanaio & Timothy Komu (2007) N4012; The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035).

249. The State does not allege that all of the accused actually committed the armed robbery but alleges that each of them either actually did the acts that constitute the offence or did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. The State relies on Section 7(1) (principal offenders) of the Criminal Code, which states:

	When an offence is committed, each of the following persons shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it:—

(a)	every person who actually does the act or makes the omission that constitutes the offence; and

(b)	every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; and

(c)	every person who aids another person in committing the offence; and

(d)	any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

250. The State relies on Section 7(1)(a) in the case of those alleged to have actually committed the robbery and Sections 7(1)(b) and (c) in the case of those alleged to have enabled or aided others in committing the robbery.

Conspiracy

251. Each of the 14 accused is charged under count 1 on the first indictment with conspiracy under the first limb of Section 515 (conspiracy to commit crimes) of the Criminal Code, which provides:

A person who conspires with another to commit a crime … is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: If no other penalty is provided—

(a)	imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years; or

(b)	if the maximum penalty for the crime in question does not exceed imprisonment for a term of seven years—not exceeding that penalty.

252. There are two elements of this offence – that the accused:

•	conspired with another person;

•	to commit a crime.

253. The first element is proven by evidence of an agreement (a meeting of minds), which may be express or implied, between the accused and some other person or persons. It is not necessary to prove direct communication between each conspirator.

254. The second element is concerned with the subject of the agreement: it must be the commission of a crime (an offence).

255. It does not matter if the agreement did not come to fruition, the agreement was not performed or if no crime was, in fact, committed. Nor is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was agreement about the way in which the crime would be committed. It is the agreement and the subject of the agreement that give rise to the offence. If there is evidence that the crime was actually committed, this is relevant to proof of the agreement and its subject, but the agreement and its subject, and not evidence of them, remain the elements that constitute the offence (The State v Iori Veraga (2005) N2849).

256. In this case the State argues that the crime that was the subject of the agreement was to 'steal from Mathias Manowo [the bank manager] and other persons with threats of actual violence monies belonging to Bank of South Pacific Ltd whilst being armed with dangerous weapons'. That is, that the 14 accused agreed to commit the crime of armed robbery. The State alleges that that crime was, in fact, committed at Madang on 5 July, and relies on evidence of its commission as evidence of the agreement.

The second indictment

Kidnapping for ransom

257. Nine of the accused are charged under counts 1 to 13 on the second indictment with kidnapping for ransom under Section 354 (kidnapping for ransom) of the Criminal Code. The complainant (ie the alleged victim) in each count is one of the group of 13 hostages at Malolo Lodge.

258. Section 354 states:

(1)	A person who—

(a)	takes or entices away, or detains, a person with intent to—

(i)	extort or gain anything from; or

(ii)	to procure anything to be done or omitted to be done by,

any person by a demand containing threats of injury or detriment, to be caused to the person taken, enticed or detained either by the offender or any other person, if the demand is not complied with; or

(b)	receives or harbours the person in respect of whom threats referred to in Paragraph (a) are made, knowing that person to have been so taken or enticed away, or detained,

is guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom.

Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(2)	If the person kidnapped has been set at liberty without having suffered grievous bodily harm the offender is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(3)	A person who attempts to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(4)	The wife of the accused person is a competent but not a compellable witness.

259. The State relies on Section 354(1)(a), which means the elements to be proven are that the accused:

•	detained a person (the bank officers and their family members);

•	with intent to gain monies from a person (BSP);

•	by a demand containing threats of injury or detriment to the person detained if the demand was not complied with.

Unlawful deprivation of liberty

260. The same nine accused who are charged under counts 1 to 13 on the second indictment with kidnapping for ransom are charged under counts 14 to 27 on that indictment with the offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Section 355 (deprivation of liberty) of the Criminal Code. The complainant in each count is one of the group of 13 people who were hostages at Malolo Lodge plus the bank officer detained on Saturday morning during the course of the robbery, Mr Salumbia.

261. Section 355 states:

 A person who unlawfully—

(a)	confines or detains another in any place against his will; or

(b)	deprives another of his personal liberty,

is guilty of a misdemeanour.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

262. The State relies on the first limb of Section 355(a), which means the elements to be proven are that the accused:

•	confined a person (the bank officers and their family members);

•	against his or her will;

•	unlawfully (ie without any lawful justification or excuse).

The third indictment

Receiving stolen property

263. Twelve of the accused are charged under a single count on the third indictment with receiving stolen property under Section 410 (receiving stolen property etc) of the Criminal Code. The offence is alleged to have been committed at Lae between 5 and 9 July, when the accused received the sum of about K1,370,315.35 the property of Bank South Pacific Ltd, which had been obtained by means of robbery. The prosecutor, Mr Kaluwin, notified the court when presenting the indictments on the opening day of the trial that the third indictment was being presented as an alternative to the charges in the first indictment. That is, the State only seeks to have the charge of receiving stolen property determined in relation to an accused in the event that a verdict of not guilty is entered on both counts on the first indictment in relation to the particular accused.

264. Section 410 states:

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

(a)	any act constituting an indictable offence; or

(b)	any act done at a place outside Papua New Guinea that—

(i)	if it had been done in Papua New Guinea would have constituted an indictable offence; and

(ii)	is an offence under the laws in force in the place where it was done,

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.

(3)	Where a thing referred to in Subsection (1) has been—

(a)	converted into other property; or

(b)	mortgaged, pledged or exchanged for any other property,

a person knowing that—

(c)	the property is wholly or in part the property into which the thing so obtained has been converted or for which it has been mortgaged or pledged or exchanged; and

(d)	the thing so obtained was obtained under such circumstances as to constitute an offence against Subsection (1),

receives the whole or any part of the property into which the thing so obtained has been converted, or for which it has been mortgaged or pledged or exchanged, is guilty of an offence against Subsection (1).

(4)	For the purpose of proving the receiving of any thing for the purposes of this section, it is sufficient to show that the accused person—

(a)	has, alone or jointly with some other person, had the thing in his possession; or

(b)	has aided in concealing it or disposing of it.

265. The State relies on Section 410(1)(a), which means the elements to be proven are that the accused:

•	received some thing (the cash, which was the property of the bank);

•	which had been obtained by means of any act constituting an indictable offence (the robbery);

•	knowing it to have been so obtained.

PART D: CHARGES FACED BY EACH ACCUSED

266. The following table sets out the charges faced by each accused. It is convenient to determine the charges on the first indictment in reverse order to that on the indictment.

TABLE 7: CHARGES FACED BY EACH ACCUSED

No	Name	1st indictment, count 2: armed robbery;
s 386	1st indictment, count 1: conspiracy to commit a crime; 
s 515	2nd indictment, counts 1-13: kidnapping for ransom; 
s 354(1)(a)	2nd indictment, counts 14-27: UDL;
s 355(a)	3rd indictment, alternative count: RSP;
s 410(1)	
1		William Nanua Kapris	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	
2		Jacob Peningi Okimbari	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	
3		Collin 
Masilo	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes			Yes	
4		Bonny Solomon 	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
5		Johnny Gumaira	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
6		Damien 
Inanei	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes 	
7		Kito
Aso	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes 
	
8		Joyce 
Maima	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	
9		Kia 
Warren	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
10		Bobby 
Selan 	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	
11		Reuben 
Micah	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	
12		Isabella 
Kivare	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	
13		Elvis Bala 
Aka	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	
14		Peter Allan Popo	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	

PART E: DETERMINATION OF VERDICTS FOR EACH ACCUSED

1	WILLIAM NANUA KAPRIS (1st Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

267. I will first address the question of whether the two elements of the offence have been proven by the State and then address the question of whether the accused committed the offence.

268. As to the first question I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	the offence of robbery was committed at BSP Madang on the morning of Saturday 5 July, in that K2,407,315.35 cash, the property of Bank South Pacific Ltd, was stolen from the bank, actual violence was threatened against three bank officers and members of their families, in order to obtain the cash, and that violence was threatened immediately before and at the time the cash was stolen; and

•	the persons who committed the offence of robbery were armed and in a group of persons.

269. As to the second question I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, in that he led the group of persons who committed the robbery at the bank. There is an abundance of evidence that he was the person who planned the robbery and was chiefly responsible for implementing the plan. He travelled from West New Britain to Lae to prepare for the robbery. He engineered the kidnapping and detention of the bank officers and their families. He led the group who staged the robbery on the morning of Saturday 5 July. He also took charge of the aftermath of the robbery in Lae, including distributing the proceeds of the robbery to those who had provided assistance. He left Lae and came to Port Moresby within a week after the robbery, with at least K161,800.00 cash, with BSP Madang tags attached, in his possession. There was strong and consistent identification evidence given by numerous witnesses in the trial depicting his central role. He is guilty of count 2.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

270. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired with a number of other persons – through an agreement (a meeting of minds) at Lae and Madang from 24 June to 5 July – to commit a crime.

271. The crime that was the subject of the agreement was armed robbery; in particular to steal from Mathias Manowo (the BSP Madang manager) and other persons with threats of actual violence monies belonging to Bank South Pacific Ltd whilst being armed with dangerous weapons.

272. The State has not proven the occurrence of a meeting between the accused and others at a particular place or time, but it did not have to. The findings of fact that have been made are evidence of a carefully planned robbery, involving a number of logistical components. Such things do not happen by chance. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the findings of fact is that an agreement was made between the accused and a number of others – some of them being his co-accused – to commit armed robbery. The fact that robbery was, in fact committed, reinforces the inference that there must have been an agreement, and given the central role played by the accused in commission of the robbery, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that he had the central role in that agreement. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

273. I will first address the question of whether the three elements of each offence have been proven by the State and then address the question of whether the accused committed any of the offences.

274. As to the first question I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	the 13 complainants (the three bank officers and their family members, referred to in the findings of fact as the 13 hostages) were detained at Malolo Lodge from the night of Friday 4 July to early Sunday 6 July;

•	they were each detained with intent to obtain monies from a person, Mathias Manowo (an officer of Bank South Pacific Ltd);

•	demands were made in respect of the 13 complainants that they must co-operate with the persons detaining them by amongst other things providing access to the BSP Madang branch and its strongroom, containing threats of injury to them if the demands were not complied with.

275. As to the second question I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the 13 offences, in that he led the group of persons who detained, first, the bank manager, Mr Manowo, and his family, then Mr Wapikwari, then Mrs Passingan and her family. There is an abundance of identification evidence against him. He is guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

276. I will first address the question of whether the three elements of each offence have been proven by the State and then address the question of whether the accused committed any of the offences.

277. As to the first question I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	the 14 complainants (the original three bank officers, plus Mr Salumbia, and their family members) were confined at Malolo Lodge from the night of Friday 4 July to early Sunday 6 July;

•	they were each confined against their will;

•	those persons who confined them did so without any lawful justification or excuse.

278. As to the second question I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the 14 offences, in that he led the group of persons who confined the complainants. There is an abundance of identification evidence against him. He was in charge of the operation under which the complainants were confined at Malolo Lodge. He is guilty of counts 14 to 27.

2	JACOB PENINGI OKIMBARI (2nd Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

279. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. However, there is an abundance of evidence that he did acts for the purpose of enabling others to commit the offence, including:

•	meeting with William in Lae and then going from Lae to Madang ahead of William and other accused to do surveillance on the bank manager;

•	hiring a vehicle from Kekam Hire Car, Madang, on 2 July;

•	trying to get the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, repaired, so that it could be used by other accused;

•	booking two rooms at Malolo Lodge;

•	being 2IC to William in detaining, threatening and keeping watch over the hostages at Malolo Lodge.

280. The fact that K6,122.00 cash, in a BSP cloth bag, was found in his possession on 4 November is evidence that reinforces his involvement in the offence. I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

281. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William to commit the crime of armed robbery. Evidence of the key role played by Jacob in the days leading up to 5 July is consistent only with the conclusion that he was a party to the conspiracy to commit the crime. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

282. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the 13 offences, in that he was 2IC to William who was the leader of the group of persons who detained, first, the bank manager, Mr Manowo, and his family, then Mr Wapikwari, then Mrs Passingan and her family, with intent to obtain money from BSP and by a demand containing threats of injury if his demands were not complied with. There is an abundance of identification evidence against Jacob. He is guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

283. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the 14 offences in that he was 2IC to William who led the group of persons who confined the complainants. There is an abundance of identification evidence against him. He played an integral and direct role in the operation under which the complainants were confined unlawfully against their will at Malolo Lodge. He is guilty of counts 14 to 27.

3	COLLIN MASILO (3rd Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

284. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. Nor is there any identification evidence that puts him at Malolo Lodge for the purpose of kidnapping or detaining the hostages. There is no direct evidence that he aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence. This means according to the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Paulus Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498 that:

•	the accused must be acquitted unless the facts proved in evidence are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt; and

•	to enable the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused it is necessary not only that his or her guilt should be a rational inference but that it should be the only rational inference that the circumstances would enable it to draw.

285. In Devlyn David v The State (2006) SC881 the Supreme Court restated the Pawa principles by saying that the question to be asked is:

•	do the proven facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion – that the accused did all the things constituting the elements of the offence? If yes, the accused is guilty. If no, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

286. The proven facts are:

•	the 2nd accused, Jacob Peningi Okimbari, who played a key role in the robbery, is a friend of the accused and in the last week of June – the time when preparations for the robbery were being made – went to the Orosombo Workshop in Lae, looking for him;

•	the accused was frequenting the house of 10th accused, Bobby Selan, in 2nd Street, Lae – which was being used as the Lae base for planning of the robbery – in the week prior to the robbery;

•	the accused was in the company of 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris, (who, it has been proven, was the leader of the criminal group who committed the robbery) in Lae on the night of Saturday 5 July (the night of the robbery);

•	on Sunday 6 July in Lae the accused told State witness No 1, Timon Kataka, that 'we have returned' and 'William will sort you out later';

•	the accused surrendered to the police 'on trust' on Sunday 14 September after having spent two months in the bush in hiding.

287. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused, if he did not actually commit the armed robbery, did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

288. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. The residence of 10th accused Bobby Selan in 2nd Street Lae was a base or staging point for those who were a party to the conspiracy. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from Collin's frequent presence there in the week prior to the robbery is that he was a party to the conspiracy. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

289. There is no direct evidence that the accused took part in the kidnapping of the 13 hostages. However, commission of the kidnapping offences was so inextricably intertwined with commission of the armed robbery that whatever acts the accused did for the purpose of committing the offence of armed robbery constitutes aiding and assisting those who directly committed the kidnapping offences. He is therefore guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

290. As with counts 1 to 13, there is no direct evidence that the accused took part in the unlawful detention of the 14 complainants the subject of counts 14 to 27. However, commission of the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences was so inextricably intertwined with commission of the armed robbery that whatever acts the accused did for the purpose of committing the offence of armed robbery constitutes aiding and assisting those who directly committed the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences. He is therefore guilty of counts 14 to 27.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

291. It is a reasonable inference to draw, given that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the robbery and, at least, aided and assisted those who actually committed it, that he would inevitably have received part of the proceeds of the robbery. However, to find an accused guilty of an offence under Section 410(1) I consider that it is necessary for it to be proven with some reasonable degree of specificity what property was actually received, which means that where the "thing" that is the subject of the charge is cash, the amount of cash must be capable of estimation. There is nothing in the evidence that would allow the court to arrive at a reasonable estimate of what the accused would have received. And there is no direct evidence that he received anything. He is therefore found not guilty of this count.

4	BONNY SOLOMON (4th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

292. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. Nor is there any identification evidence that puts him at Malolo Lodge for the purpose of kidnapping or detaining the hostages. There is no direct evidence that he aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence. The only proven fact that implicates him in the robbery is that he had K1,250.00 cash in his possession when arrested by police at Unitech, Lae on Monday 7 July. There were other sums of cash under his control at that time, but they were not substantial sums. He has given an explanation for the cash he had: that he had sold several bags of betel nut that he had brought from Madang. That story is not a very convincing one. But it does not have to be. An accused does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is not the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are not inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the proven facts do not lead reasonably only to the conclusion that the accused was involved in the robbery. He is found not guilty of count 2.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

293. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in addition to that outlined in relation to the armed robbery charge, that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery. He is therefore not guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

294. There was no identification evidence against the accused. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in addition to that outlined in relation to the armed robbery charge, that the accused aided or assisted in commission of the kidnapping offences. He is therefore not guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

295. There was no identification evidence against the accused. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in addition to that outlined in relation to the armed robbery charge, that the accused aided or assisted in commission of the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences. He is therefore not guilty of counts 14 to 27.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

296. There is insufficient evidence that the cash found in the accused's possession was part of the proceeds of the robbery. He is therefore found not guilty of this count.

5	JOHNNY GUMAIRA (5th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

297. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. Nor is there any identification evidence that puts him at Malolo Lodge for the purpose of kidnapping or detaining the hostages. There is no direct evidence that he aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence.

298. The proven facts are:

•	he was in the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, that was hired by 11th accused Reuben Micah and driven from Lae to Madang on the evening of Thursday 3 July;

•	he was in or around Madang just prior to the robbery;

•	his brother's PMV bus, "PORO", was used, in Madang by those who committed the robbery or assisted others in committing the robbery;

•	he gave possession of a suitcase containing K129,500.00 cash, which was part of the proceeds of the robbery, to his relatives a little over a month after the robbery;

•	he was staying with his girlfriend, 8th accused Joyce Maima, when, on Tuesday 12 August, K4,600.00 cash, which was part of the proceeds of the robbery, was found and seized by the police;

•	he was Joyce's boyfriend, which, in itself is a significant fact in view of Joyce's connection with other accused, particularly 1st accused William Nanua Kapris in the period immediately after the robbery.

299. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The doctrine of recent possession also operates against the accused (The State v Alpen Popo [1978] PNGLR 18). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused, if he did not actually commit the armed robbery, did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

300. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

301. There is no direct evidence that the accused took part in the kidnapping of the 13 hostages. However, commission of the kidnapping offences was so inextricably intertwined with commission of the armed robbery that whatever acts the accused did for the purpose of committing the offence of armed robbery constitutes aiding and assisting those who directly committed the kidnapping offences. He is therefore guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

302. As with counts 1 to 13 there is no direct evidence that the accused took part in the unlawful detention of the 14 complainants the subject of counts 14 to 27. However, commission of the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences was so inextricably intertwined with commission of the armed robbery that whatever acts the accused did for the purpose of committing the offence of armed robbery constitutes aiding and assisting those who directly committed the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences. He is therefore guilty of counts 14 to 27.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

303. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	the accused received at least K134,100.00 (K129,500.00, being the contents of the camouflage suitcase + K4,600.00 found in his girlfriend Joyce's bedroom) which was the property of BSP Ltd;

•	that cash, which had BSP Madang tags attached, had been obtained by means of an act constituting an indictable offence, viz armed robbery;

•	the accused knew that the cash had been obtained in that manner.

304.	He is therefore guilty of count 1.

6	DAMIEN INANEI (6th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

305. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. Nor is there any identification evidence that puts him at Malolo Lodge for the purpose of kidnapping or detaining the hostages. There is no direct evidence that he aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence.

306. The proven facts are:

•	he joined with his friend, 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari (who played an integral role in planning and committing the robbery) in hiring the blue Toyota Sprinter sedan, BCF 807, from Kekam Hire Car, Madang, on Wednesday 2 July;

•	there was a lot of vehicular activity around his house at Gum Primary School on Thursday 3 and Friday 4 July, including the presence of the green Toyota 10-seater Landcruiser, that was hired by a person unknown from Kekam Hire Car, Madang, on Friday 4 July, and used on that day and Saturday for the purpose of abducting the bank officers and their families and for committing the robbery on Saturday morning;

•	the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which 12th accused Reuben Micah had hired from Premium Hire Car, Lae, which was used to convey a number of the accused from Lae to Madang for the purposes of the robbery, and which broke down on the way to Madang, was parked near the accused's house at Gum Primary School, and he was instrumental in attempts to get it repaired on Friday 4 July;

•	he was in the company of the 1st accused, William Nanua Kapris (who, it has been proven, was the leader of the criminal group who committed the robbery) in Lae on the night of Saturday 5 July (the night of the robbery).

307. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused, if he did not actually commit the armed robbery, did acts – particularly to do with arranging transport – for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

308. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. Although he was in Madang, not in Lae, prior to the robbery, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from his close association with the 2nd accused Jacob Peningi Okimbari is that he was a party to the conspiracy. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

309. There is no direct evidence that the accused took part in the kidnapping of the 13 hostages. However, commission of the kidnapping offences was so inextricably intertwined with commission of the armed robbery that whatever acts the accused did for the purpose of committing the offence of armed robbery constitutes aiding and assisting those who directly committed the kidnapping offences. He is therefore guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

310. As with counts 1 to 13 there is no direct evidence that the accused took part in the unlawful detention of the 14 complainants the subject of counts 14 to 27. However, commission of the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences was so inextricably intertwined with commission of the armed robbery that whatever acts the accused did for the purpose of committing the offence of armed robbery constitutes aiding and assisting those who directly committed the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences. He is therefore guilty of counts 14 to 27.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

311. It is a reasonable inference to draw, given that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the robbery and, at least, aided and assisted those who actually committed it, that he would inevitably have received part of the proceeds of the robbery. However, there is nothing in the evidence that would allow the court to arrive at a reasonable estimate of what the accused would have received. And there is no direct evidence that he received anything. For the same reasons given in relation to 3rd accused Collin Masilo, he is found not guilty of this count.

7	KITO ASO (7th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

312. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. However, it is clear that he was one of the armed guards at Malolo Lodge, room 3. Kidnapping and detention of the hostages was an integral part of the modus operandi of the robbery. This is direct evidence that he aided and assisted those who committed the robbery. It is sufficient evidence to find him guilty. The following proven facts reinforce the conclusion that he must be found guilty:

•	he came with 1st accused William Nanua Kapris from West New Britain to Lae in late June, clearly for the purpose of planning and committing the robbery;

•	he had a longstanding and close personal relationship with William, who he regarded as his elder brother;

•	he travelled with William and other accused, from Lae in the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which 12th accused Reuben Micah had hired from Premium Hire Car, Lae, on the evening of Thursday 3 July, for the purposes of the robbery;

•	he went back to Lae after the robbery and remained in close company with William and travelled with him by boat from Lae (leaving on Tuesday 8 July) to Central Province (arriving on Saturday 12 July) and was with William when arrested by police on Thursday 17 July.

313.	I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

314. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from his close association with William over a period of almost one month, during which time the robbery was committed, is that he was a party to the conspiracy. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

315. There is direct, strong and consistent identification evidence that the accused took part in the kidnapping of the 13 hostages. He was one of the armed guards holding the 13 hostages at Malolo Lodge, room 3. He is guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

316. As with counts 1 to 13, there is direct, strong and consistent identification evidence that the accused unlawfully detained the 14 complainants the subject of counts 14 to 27 against their will. He is therefore guilty of counts 14 to 27.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

317. It is a reasonable inference to draw, given that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the robbery and aided and assisted those who actually committed it, that he would inevitably have received part of the proceeds of the robbery. However, there is nothing in the evidence that would allow the court to arrive at a reasonable estimate of what the accused would have received. And there is no direct evidence that he received anything. For the same reasons given in relation to 3rd accused Collin Masilo, he is found not guilty of this count.

8	JOYCE MAIMA (8th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

318. There is no evidence or suggestion that that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. She was not in Madang at the time of the robbery. There is no direct evidence that she aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence.

319. The proven facts are:

•	she hired a silver-green Ford Ranger utility, BBX 786, from Akel Hire Car, Lae on the afternoon of Saturday 5 July and returned it the following day, and during the hire period the vehicle was used by 1st accused William Nanua Kapris to drive around Lae, drinking at various locations, in the company of his relatives and other accused;

•	she was in the company of William and other accused, in Lae, on the night of Saturday 5 July and on Sunday 6 July;

•	she drove her company car, the green-silver Mitsubishi L200 utility, LAQ 333, to the residence of the Manua family at Lae Tech – which was frequented by William on the night of Saturday 5 July and during Sunday 6 July – on the afternoon of Sunday 6 July;

•	her company car, the green-silver Mitsubishi L200 utility, LAQ 333, was driven by William to the place where the money was counted, the residence of Ian Wamo in Finch Street, Lae, on the night of Sunday 6 July;

•	her house in Gannet Street, Lae, was raided by the police on the morning of Tuesday 12 August and K4,600.00 cash, being part of the proceeds of the robbery, was found in her bedroom;

•	she was the girlfriend of 5th accused Johnny Gumaira, who was in possession or control of at least K134,100.00 (K129,500.00, being the contents of the camouflage suitcase + K4,600.00 found in Joyce's bedroom) which was part of the proceeds of the robbery.

320. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. I find her guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

321. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. She is therefore guilty of count 1.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

322. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	the accused received at least K4,600.00, which was found in the bedroom of her house in Gannett Street Lae when it was raided by police on the morning of Tuesday 12 August which was the property of BSP Ltd;

•	that cash, which had BSP Madang tags attached, had been obtained by means of an act constituting an indictable offence, viz armed robbery;

•	the accused knew that the cash had been obtained in that manner.

323. 	She is therefore guilty of count 1.

9	KIA WARREN (9th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

324. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. Nor is there any identification evidence that puts him at Malolo Lodge for the purpose of kidnapping or detaining the hostages. There is no direct evidence that he aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence, of which there is very little. The only proven facts of any significance are:

•	he knows 10th accused Bobby Selan well and was on Bobby's campaign committee when he stood for election as Lord Mayor of Lae;

•	he hid in the bush for two or three months after the date of the robbery before he was arrested;

•	3rd accused Collin Masilo passed a note to him through their mutual friend, State witness No 24, Adam Orosombo, shortly before Collin surrendered to police on 14 September;

•	he was named by 14th accused Peter Allan Popo in his confessional statement (which continues to be treated with caution by the court) as being involved in the robbery.

325. As per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is not the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are not inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the proven facts do not lead reasonably only to the conclusion that the accused was involved in the robbery. He is found not guilty of count 2.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

326. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in addition to that outlined in relation to the armed robbery charge, that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery. He is therefore not guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

327. There was no identification against the accused. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in addition to that outlined in relation to the armed robbery charge, that the accused aided or assisted in commission of the kidnapping offences. He is therefore not guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

328. There was no identification against the accused. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in addition to that outlined in relation to the armed robbery charge, that the accused aided or assisted in commission of the unlawful deprivation of liberty offences. He is therefore not guilty of counts 14 to 27.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

329.	There is no evidence that the accused received any of the proceeds of the robbery. He is not guilty of this count.

10	BOBBY SELAN (10th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

330. There is no evidence or suggestion that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. He was not in Madang at the time of the robbery. There is no direct evidence that he aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence.

331.	The proven facts are:

•	his residence in 2nd Street, Lae, was used as a base or staging post by 1st accused William Nanua Kapris and others involved in the robbery in the two-week period leading up to the robbery and was the place where State witness No 1 Timon Kataka continued to stay while William and others went to Madang to commit the robbery;

•	SMK transactions totalling about K950.00 were conducted on his behalf, from Lae Post Office, in the week after the robbery;

•	he was a friend of 3rd accused Collin Masilo and acted as a go-between with Collin and the police, which led to Collin surrendering on 14 September;

•	his residence was also a place that some of those who went to Madang, for the purposes of the robbery, returned to after the robbery.

332. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. He must have known what his house was being used for. The only reasonable inference to draw from the facts is that he was complicit in the arrangement and that his house was being used with his full knowledge and consent. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

333. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

334. It is a reasonable inference to draw, given that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the robbery and aided and assisted those who actually committed it, that he would inevitably have received part of the proceeds of the robbery. However, there is nothing in the evidence that would allow the court to arrive at a reasonable estimate of what the accused would have received. And there is no direct evidence that he received anything. For the same reasons given in relation to 3rd accused Collin Masilo, he is found not guilty of this count.

11	REUBEN MICAH (11th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

335. There is no evidence that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence.

336. The proven facts are:

•	he met 1st accused William Nanua Kapris at Geks Compound on Tuesday 24 June, soon after William and others arrived from West New Britain;

•	he was in William's company, in Lae, including when they were observed driving together in a beige Toyota Hilux on or about 25 to 27 June;

•	he hired three vehicles from Premier Hire Car, Lae, in late-June, early-July, and at least one of them (the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507) was used on Thursday 3 July to convey 1st accused William Nanua Kapris and others to Madang for the purpose of the robbery – and the accused was in the vehicle on that trip;

•	he misled his friend, Jerry Beglana, the manager of Premier Hire Car, about the purpose for which LAU 507 was required;

•	his own vehicle, the white Mazda Bravo, LAN 922, was seen in Lae by State witnesses at various times before and after the robbery, at places at which William and others involved in the robbery were seen, including when his vehicle was used to convey William and others from Geks Compound to the Mai residence in Two Mile, and later from the Mai residence to Bobby Selan's house in 2nd Street, Lae;

•	he was actively involved in trying to get LAU 507 repaired once it had broken down near Madang;

•	he was in Madang at the time of the robbery and left to return to Lae early on the morning of Sunday 6 July;

•	he was involved in the hire of the gold Toyota Hilux CAO 582 from Lama Rent-a-Car, Madang, on the afternoon of Saturday 5 July, the cash for the hire coming from the proceeds of the robbery and the vehicle being hired under a false name – and the vehicle was driven to Lae and not returned to Madang until late on Monday 7 July;

•	he was present, with his own vehicle, at the counting centre at Ian Wamo's residence in Finch Street, Lae, on Sunday night, 6 July.

337. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

338. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

339. It is a reasonable inference to draw, given that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the robbery and, aided and assisted those who actually committed it, that he would inevitably have received part of the proceeds of the robbery. However, there is nothing in the evidence that would allow the court to arrive at a reasonable estimate of what the accused would have received. And there is no direct evidence that he received anything. For the same reasons given in relation to 3rd accused Collin Masilo, he is found not guilty of this count.

12	ISABELLA KIVARE (12th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

340. There is no evidence or suggestion that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. She was not in Madang at the time of the robbery. There is no direct evidence that she aided or assisted those who committed the robbery. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence.

341. The proven facts are:

•	though she was a long-term resident of Lae and had a permanent place of abode she decided to rent a room at the house of Ezekiel John Mai in Two Mile in June-July – she moved in on 19 June, just five days before the arrival from West New Britain of 1st accused William Nanua Kapris and others, and she left on Monday 7 July, just after distribution of some of the proceeds of the robbery at the residence of Benny Mai and the day before William and others left Lae, headed to Central Province;

•	she went on shopping spree in Lae on Monday 7 July and gave K1,000.00 to Jane Ezekiel Mai, a lot of money to give to a grade-10 schoolgirl, as Ms Mai was at the time;

•	she was present at the residence of Benny Mai, in Two Mile, on Monday 7 July, when some of the proceeds of the robbery were distributed to various people who had assisted, in some way, those who had committed the robbery in Madang two days beforehand.

342. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. In particular she provided a safe place in which William and others could be accommodated upon their arrival from West New Britain. She is guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

343. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. She is therefore guilty of count 1.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

344. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	the accused received at least K1,000.00, the cash that she gave to Ms Mai on 7 July, at Two Mile, Lae, which was the property of BSP Ltd;

•	that cash had been obtained by means of an act constituting an indictable offence, viz armed robbery;

•	the accused must have known and did in fact know that the cash had been obtained in that manner.

345. 	She is therefore guilty of count 1.

13	ELVIS BALA AKA (13th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

346. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. The State must rely on circumstantial evidence. The following are proven facts:

•	he came with 1st accused William Nanua Kapris from West New Britain to Lae in late June – he was the skipper of the dinghy – and his statements in the record of interview that he did not know who William was and did not know the purpose of the trip cannot be accepted, as he must have known what was going on and that the real purpose of the trip was to plan and commit a robbery;

•	he was not in Madang at the time of the robbery – he was in Lae, staying at 10th accused Bobby Selan's place;

•	he was in close company with William, in Lae, after the robbery and was again the skipper of the dinghy when it left Lae on Tuesday 8 July, arriving in Central Province on Saturday 12 July, and he was still with William when arrested by police on Thursday 17 July;

•	as skipper of the boat he played an important role in transporting William to and away from Lae.

347. I consider that as per the test in Paulus Pawa's case the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the above facts; and the proven facts are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. As per the test in Devlyn David's case the above facts lead reasonably to only one conclusion: that the accused was involved in the robbery, in some way. It is not necessary in an armed gang robbery case dependent on circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to establish precisely what acts an accused person has done. It is sufficient to establish that an accused was involved in some way (The State v Alphonse Asarombo & Timothy Lokora (2010) N4035). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts is that the accused did acts for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to commit the offence or aided others in committing the offence. I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

348. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from his close association with William over a period of almost one month, during which time the robbery was committed, is that he was a party to the conspiracy. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

349. It is a reasonable inference to draw, given that the accused was a party to the conspiracy to commit the robbery and aided and assisted those who actually committed it, that he would inevitably have received part of the proceeds of the robbery. However, there is nothing in the evidence that would allow the court to arrive at a reasonable estimate of what the accused would have received. And there is no direct evidence that he received anything. For the same reasons given in relation to 3rd accused Collin Masilo, he is found not guilty of this count.

14	PETER ALLAN POPO (14th Accused)

First indictment: count 2 – armed robbery

350. There is insufficient evidence to find that the accused actually did the acts constituting the offence. There is no direct evidence that he was a member of the group that went to the bank on the Saturday morning and committed the robbery. However, it is clear that he was one of the armed guards at Malolo Lodge, room 3. Kidnapping and detention of the hostages was an integral part of the modus operandi of the robbery. This is direct evidence that he aided and assisted those who committed the robbery. It is sufficient evidence to find him guilty. The following proven facts reinforce the conclusion that he must be found guilty:

•	he frequented 10th accused Bobby Selan's place in 2nd Street with William and other accused in the week prior to the robbery;

•	he travelled with 1st accused William Nanua Kapris and other accused from Lae in the white Toyota Hilux, LAU 507, which 12th accused Reuben Micah had hired from Premium Hire Car, Lae, on the evening of Thursday 3 July, for the purposes of the robbery;

•	he went back to Lae soon after the robbery and was given about K50,000.00 in Lae the day after the robbery, then participated in a drinking session at Phil's Motel on Sunday night;

•	he was caught by police with K28,733.00 cash in his possession, most with BSP Madang tags attached, outside his house in Eagle Street, Lae, on the morning of Monday 7 July;

•	he made admissions to police in a confessional statement taken on 7 July.

351.	I find him guilty of count 2 by virtue of Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

First indictment: count 1 – conspiracy

352. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt, for similar reasons given in relation to 1st accused William Nanua Kapris, that the accused conspired with William and others to commit the crime of armed robbery. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from his close association with William over a period of almost one month, during which time the robbery was committed, is that he was a party to the conspiracy. He is therefore guilty of count 1.

Second indictment: counts 1-13 – kidnapping for ransom

353. There is direct, strong and consistent identification evidence that the accused took part in the kidnapping of the 13 hostages. He was one of the armed guards holding the 13 hostages at Malolo Lodge, room 3. He is guilty of counts 1 to 13.

Second indictment: counts 14-27 – unlawful deprivation of liberty

354. As with counts 1 to 13, there is direct, strong and consistent identification evidence that the accused unlawfully detained the 14 complainants the subject of counts 14 to 27 against their will. He is therefore guilty of counts 14 to 27.

Third indictment: count 1 – receiving stolen property

355. I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	the accused received at least K28,733.00 which was the property of BSP Ltd;

•	that cash, which had BSP Madang tags attached, had been obtained by means of an act constituting an indictable offence, viz armed robbery;

•	the accused knew that the cash had been obtained in that manner.

356.	He is therefore guilty of count 1.

PART F: SUMMARY OF VERDICTS

357.	Verdicts are entered according to the following table.

TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF VERDICTS

No	Name	1st indictment, count 2: armed robbery;
s 386	1st indictment, count 1: conspiracy to commit a crime; 
s 515	2nd indictment, counts 1-13: kidnapping for ransom; 
s 354(1)(a)	2nd indictment, counts 14-27: UDL;
s 355(a)	3rd indictment, alternative count: RSP;
s 410(1)	
1		William Nanua Kapris	Guilty	Guilty 	Guilty	Guilty 	Not charged 	
2		Jacob Peningi Okimbari	Guilty	Guilty 	Guilty	Guilty 	Not charged 	
3		Collin 
Masilo	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Not guilty	
4		Bonny Solomon 	Not guilty	Not guilty	Not guilty	Not guilty	Not guilty	
5		Johnny Gumaira	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	
6		Damien 
Inanei	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Not guilty	
7		Kito
Aso	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Not guilty	
8		Joyce
Maima	Guilty	Guilty	Not charged	Not charged	Guilty	
9		Kia 
Warren	Not guilty	Not guilty	Not guilty	Not guilty	Not guilty	
10		Bobby 
Selan 	Guilty	Guilty	Not charged	Not charged	Not guilty	
11		Reuben 
Micah	Guilty	Guilty	Not charged	Not charged	Not guilty	
12		Isabella 
Kivare	Guilty	Guilty	Not charged	Not charged	Guilty	
13		Elvis Bala 
Aka	Guilty	Guilty	Not charged	Not charged	Not guilty	
14		Peter Allan Popo	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	Guilty	

Verdicts accordingly.
____________________________

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Dotaona Lawyers: Lawyers for the 1st accused
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the 2nd, 7th, 12th & 13th accused
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th & 14th accused
Daniels & Associates: Lawyers for the 8th, 10th & 11th accused