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

State v Boski [2014] PGNC 161; N5814 (24 October 2014)

N5814

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CR. No.750 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

DORCAS BOSKI
Prisoner

Mt. Hagen: David, J
2014: 10 & 24 October

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – obtaining goods by false pretences or wilfully false promise – one count – plea of guilty – Criminal Code, Section 404(1)(a).

Facts

The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining K12,000.00 from a male victim by false pretence. The prisoner was a Senior Rental Sales Representative with Avis Rent A Car located at Kagamuga in Mt. Hagen. The victim approached the prisoner for the purchase of a motor vehicle that her employer was selling and she promised to organize its sale and purchase to him on staff price. The victim deposited with the prisoner K16,000.00, but after a long while and despite several follow ups, the motor vehicle was never delivered to him. The prisoner left her employment sometime thereafter. The victim then involved a debt collection agency to pursue the matter with the prisoner. The prisoner managed to repay K4,000.00 to the victim and undertook to pay the balance later, but failed.

Held:

(1) A sentence of three years imprisonment in hard labour was imposed.

(2) The pre-sentence period in custody of two months was deducted and the remaining term suspended on terms.

Cases cited:

Public Prosecutor v Tom Ake [1978] PNGLR 469
Goli Golu v The State (1979) PNGLR 653
Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola (1981) PNGLR 41
Avia Aihi (No.3) v The State (1982) PNGLR 92
Ure Hane v The State (1984) PNGLR 105
Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew (1986) PNGLR 91
The State v Frank Kagai (1987) PNGLR 320
John Elipa Kalabus v the State (1988) PNGLR 193
Wellington Belawa v The State (1988-89) PNGLR 496
Lawrence Simbe v The State (1994) PNGLR 38
The State v Paul Takesi (1997) PNGLR 507
The State v John Kil (2000) PNGLR 253
Doreen Liprin v The State (2001) SC 673
The State v Louise Paraka (2002) N2317
The State v Sam Pipi (2004) PGNC 197, N2574
The State v Jack Ostekal Metz (2005) N2824
The State v Alice Wilmot (2005) N2857
The State v Morris Yepin (2005) N3503
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890
The State v Dominic Kurai (2008) N3435
The State v Roselyn Waiembi (2008) N3708
The State v Steven Luva (2010) N3909
The State v Gaibole Dickson Larry (2011) N4455
The State v Joseph Sape (2013) PGNC36, N5096
The State v Angela Tokonai (2012) N4679
The State v John Bolkun (2012) N4689
The State v Ivan Bob (2013) N5382
The State v Larry Dickson, CR No.866 of 2013, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of David, J delivered in Mt. Hagen on 12th of August 2014

Counsel:

Joe Kesan, for the State
Paul Moses, for the Prisoner

SENTENCE

24th October, 2014

1. DAVID, J: The prisoner, Dorcas Boski was committed to stand trial in the National Court by the Mt. Hagen District Court on 28th of May 2009 charged with one count of obtaining goods by false pretences contrary to Section 404(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. She was admitted to bail a month after her arrest and detention. She absconded bail thereafter and on 17th of December 2009, a bench warrant was issued. She was apprehended following a successful execution of the bench warrant on 24th of September 2014 by police. She appeared before me from custody on 10th of October 2014 and pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining K12,000.00 by false pretences and was convicted accordingly.
   

2. The brief allegations were these. The prisoner was employed as a Senior Rental Sales Representative with Avis Rent A Car based at Kagamuga, Mt. Hagen in the Western Highlands Province. On 9th of January 2007, the victim namely John Tomba went to the Avis Office at Kagamuga and enquired with the prisoner about a motor vehicle, a Toyota Mini bus which was being offered for sale. The prisoner promised to help the victim to buy the motor vehicle on a reduced staff price. The victim agreed and deposited K16,000.00 with the prisoner. The victim waited for a long period of time and the bus was not sold to him. So he enquired further at the Avis Office and discovered that the prisoner was no longer employed by the company. He also discovered that the receipt he was given did not correspond with company records. The victim then engaged a private debt collection agency and made enquiries of the whereabouts of the prisoner and located her. She paid K4,000.00 and promised to pay the balance within a short period of time. However, that did not happen and the matter was reported to police and the prisoner was arrested, charged and detained.

3. After administering the allocutus, Mr. Moses for the prisoner requested for a pre-sentence report and a means assessment report to be compiled and filed by the Probation Service, Mt. Hagen which I granted. The Probation Service through Ms Lilly Songoa, Probation Officer has compiled and filed these reports and I commend her for the reports.

4. The prisoner's Record of Interview conducted by Detective Sergeant James Niangu at the General Office of the Criminal Investigation Division at Mt. Hagen Police Station on 6th of February 2009 and attended by Sergeant Patrick Towingo as corroborator contains admissions.

5. The prisoner has no prior convictions.

6. On her allocutus, the prisoner said sorry to the victim, her family, God and the Court for what she had done. She asked for mercy and requested that she be given a non-custodial sentence in order to resolve the matter out of Court by restitution of the money stolen.

7. Since the prisoner pleaded guilty, she will be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating matters that are raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in defence submissions that the prosecution does not contest: Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890.

8. The prisoner who is of mixed Madang and New Ireland parentage was born on 24th of October 1975 in Mt. Hagen and raised here since childhood. She is aged 39 years now so at the time of the commissioning of the offence, she would have been aged over 31 years and 2 months. Until her arrest and detention, she was residing at the Mt. Hagen "T" School compound in Mt. Hagen. She is one of 7 siblings in her family comprising 4 sisters and 3 brothers and she is the third born. Her father died in 2003 and is survived by her mother. She was previously married from which relationship she produced 4 male children. She has since separated from her husband and her former husband has remarried. One of the children resides with her and the rest reside with their father in Port Moresby. She is a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church. The prisoner is generally physically and mentally healthy, but has a history of suffering from bronchitis. The prisoner attended primary school at the Mt. Hagen "T" School and completed Grade 10 at the Hagen Park Secondary School in 1992. She attended the Mt. Hagen Technical College in 1993 where she took up short courses in accounting. She was employed by Steamships Hardware as an Accounts Clerk for 4 years from 1995 to 1999. She left that employment and was employed by Trans Niugini Tours as an Accounts Clerk for less than a year. She was then employed by Avis Rent A Car as a Senior Rental Sales Representative for 3 years. She then took up employment with Samtek Hire Car as Office Manageress from 2011 to 2012 and she is now unemployed. The prisoner was arrested on 26th of January 2009 and charged with one count of false pretence. She was admitted to bail after being incarcerated for a month. She absconded bail and a bench warrant was issued for her arrest on 17th of December 2009. She was apprehended on 24th of September 2014 and has been in custody for a month now.

9. I have considered the matters contained in the pre-sentence report and the means assessment report. The reports, amongst other things, report that; the prisoner currently does not have the financial means to meet an order for restitution on her own, but her relatives who are financially sound and members of the community can assist her; of the K12,000.00 the prisoner owes the victim, she will contribute K2,000.00 within one month of sentence and release from custody; and the victim John Tomba wants the amount of K12,000.00 to be paid in cash by two instalments within a period of 6 months, the first to be K8,000.00 and the last to be K4,000.00.
It is therefore recommended that the prisoner be given a non-custodial sentence under the supervision of the Probation Service principally conditional upon restitution being effected within 6 months of sentence by two installments, the first being K8,000.00 and the balance of K4,000.00 to be paid last.

10 In mitigation it was submitted that:

1. the prisoner is a first offender;

2. the prisoner cooperated with the police by making early admissions in the Record of Interview;

3. the prisoner paid K4,000.00 of the initial K16,000.00 she received from the victim;

4. the prisoner expressed genuine remorse;

5. the prisoner had a history of suffering from bronchitis; and

6. this was a non-violent offence.

11. A sentence of 3 years fully suspended on terms would be appropriate Mr. Moses submitted.

12. In aggravation, it was submitted that:

1. a substantial amount of money was involved;
2. the victim was a simple villager who had accumulated the money over a period of time and had endured or suffered stress, anxiety and inconvenience over the loss; and
3. there was a serious breach of trust.
   

13. Mr. Kesan for the State submitted that guided by the sentencing guidelines in Wellington Belawa v The State (1988-89) PNGLR 496 where this case would fall under category 3 which recommended a gaol term of 2 to 3 years, a sentence within that range would be appropriate he said. Counsel did not seriously oppose a non-custodial sentence.

14. What is the appropriate sentence for the prisoner?

15. The maximum prescribed penalty for the offence of obtaining goods or credit by false pretences or by a wilfully false promise under Section 404(1) of the Code is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

16. The Supreme Court decision of Wellington Belawa is the leading authority in this jurisdiction for the offence of misappropriation and it sets out the sentencing guidelines for that offence inclusive of the factors that are to be considered and the tariff to apply. There appears to be concurrence by the courts with general consistency that apart from misappropriation cases, the sentencing guidelines in Wellington Belawa should also apply to all cases involving an element of dishonesty such as those concerning forgery, obtaining goods by false pretences, fraud, stealing and the like in the absence of appropriate sentencing guidelines for those particular offences: eg, The State v Louise Paraka (2002) N2317, The State v Jack Ostekal Metz (2005) N2824, The State v Alice Wilmot (2005) N2857, The State v Morris Yepin (2005) N3503, The State v Roselyn Waiembi (2008) N3708, The State v Steven Luva (2010) N3909.

17. In Wellington Belawa, the Supreme Court recommended that the following factors should be taken into account when determining what penalty to impose on an offender and these are:

1. the amount taken;
2. the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender;
3. the period over which the offence was perpetrated;
4. the use to which the money or property dishonestly taken was put;
5. the effect upon the victim;
6. the impact of the offence on the public and public confidence;
7. the effect on fellow employees or partners;
8. the effect upon the offender himself;
9. the offender's own history;
10. whether restitution was made to the victim;
11. matters of mitigation special to the offender himself, such as ill health, young or old age, effect of excessive nervous strain, co-operation with the police.
    

18. The case of Wellington Belawa recommended a tariff of sentences to be adjusted upward or downward depending on the various factors mentioned above. The Supreme Court said that where the amount misappropriated is between:

1. K1.00 and K1,000.00, a gaol term should rarely be imposed;

2. K1,000.00 and K10,000.00, a gaol term of up to 2 years;

3. K10,000.00 and K40,000, a gaol term of 2 to 3 years; and

4. K40,000.00 to K150,000.00 a gaol term of 3 to 5 years.

19. It is generally accepted now that while the factors set out in Wellington Belawa are still relevant, the tariff recommended is outdated and therefore there is a need to impose increased sentences due to the prevalence of the offence. However, the Court still has a considerable discretion under Section 19 of the Code to impose an appropriate sentence depending on the peculiar facts or circumstances of a particular case.

20. In The State v Dominic Kurai (2008) N3435, Cannings, J adopted a middle range of 2½ years as the starting point for sentencing for an offence under Section 404(1)(a) of the Code. There, the prisoner obtained goods from a store in Kimbe worth K728.86 by false pretences when he used the order book of his former employer without authority. He was sentenced to one year imprisonment less the pre-sentence custodial period and the balance of the sentence was suspended on various conditions. I adopted the starting point of 2½ years imprisonment in The State v Joseph Sape (2013) PGNC36, N5096 and was also guided by the sentencing guidelines in Wellington Belawa in arriving at the sentence I imposed in that case. I adopted the same approach in The State v Larry Dickson, CR No.866 of 2013, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of David, J delivered in Mt. Hagen on 12th of August 2014 which I will summarise later on in the judgment. I propose to adopt the same approach here as well. The sentence in the present case will either be increased beyond the starting point or decreased depending on the factors in aggravation as well as those in mitigation.

21. I apply the factors set out in Wellington Belawa to the circumstances of the present case in the order set out there in the following manner:

1. a substantial amount was taken;
2. there was a serious breach of trust;
3. this was a one-off transaction;
4. the prisoner applied the money dishonestly taken to her own use;
5. the victim, a simple villager, who had accumulated the money over a period of time has endured or suffered stress, anxiety and inconvenience over the loss;
6. trust and confidence in people engaged in the hire car business is seriously eroded;
7. not applicable to the circumstances of the present case.
8. the prisoner left her employment with Avis Rent A Car following the incident and was subsequently arrested and charged;
9. the prisoner has no prior convictions;
10. the prisoner actually took K16,000.00 from the victim and repaid K4,000.00 and the balance of K12,000.00 has not been repaid;
11. the prisoner cooperated with the police by making early admissions in the Record of Interview and she suffers from bronchitis.
    

22. The factors which aggravate the offence therefore are:

1. a substantial amount was taken;
2. there was a serious breach of trust;
3. the prisoner applied the money dishonestly taken to her own use;
4. the victim, a simple villager, who had accumulated the money over a period of time has endured or suffered stress, anxiety and inconvenience over the loss;
5. trust and confidence in people engaged in the hire car business is seriously eroded;
6. the prisoner actually took K16,000.00 from the victim and only repaid K4,000.00 and the balance of K12,000.00 has not been repaid;
7. the prisoner is an educated and sophisticated person able to tell what was right from wrong;
8. the offence was prevalent;
9. the prisoner absconded bail and was on the bench warrant list for over 4 years and 9 months before being apprehended.
   

23. The factors which mitigate the offences therefore are:

1. it was a one-off transaction;
2. the prisoner pleaded guilty;
3. the prisoner cooperated with the police by making early admissions in the Record of Interview;
4. the prisoner expressed genuine remorse having pleaded guilty at her trial consistent with her early admissions (Public Prosecutor v Tom Ake [1978] PNGLR 469 and John Elipa Kalabus v the State [1988] PNGLR 193);
5. the prisoner has no prior convictions;
6. the prisoner has suffered and will continue to suffer personal and public shame and disgrace because of her conviction and sentence;
7. the prisoner was of previous good record; and
8. the prisoner had a history of suffering from bronchitis.
   

24. I have refused to accept the prisoner's submission to treat K4,000.00 she repaid to the victim as a mitigating factor because she has been charged for misappropriating only the reduced amount of K12,000.00 from the initial K16,000.00 she had dishonestly taken. She cannot benefit twice.

25. As to the prisoner's submission to treat this non-violent offence as a mitigating factor, I think it will be relevant when considering the type of punishment to impose applying the principle in Doreen Liprin v The State (2001) SC673 which is that a custodial sentence is inappropriate in misappropriation cases or other non-violent offences so alternatives other than imprisonment that will achieve the purposes of retribution, restitution and rehabilitation need to be considered.

26. I have also considered the following cases where offenders have been convicted on pleas of guilty for obtaining goods or credit by false pretences or wilfully false promise.

27. In The State v Paul Takesi (1997) PNGLR 507, a lawyer employed by the Office of the State Solicitor who had assisted two claimants for workers' compensation in relation to the death of a brother in the case of the male claimant and husband to the female claimant. When the three cheques for the claim totaling K11,715.26 were ready, he collected them at the Office of Worker's Compensation at Waigani representing that he had authority from the claimants to collect them when he did not have such authority. He managed to cash a cheque drawn for K7,000.00 at TST Supermarket at Tokarara, Port Moresby by presenting a false identification card which had on it his photograph, but with the name of the payee of the cheque. He then bought goods from the supermarket to the value of K1,000.00 and obtained the balance of K6,000.00 in cash which he applied to his own use. He was convicted of two counts of obtaining goods by false pretences and a custodial sentence of two years imprisonment for each count to be served concurrently was imposed.

28. In The State v John Kil (2000) PNGLR 253, the prisoner, a former policeman, obtained K1,470 from the victim by false pretences. The prisoner had told a former colleague that he would be receiving K21,000.00 from his former employer as his termination entitlement and having convinced his colleague, the latter in turn convinced the victim to lend the money to the prisoner on the belief that the prisoner would repay the debt. After receiving the money, the prisoner disappeared and did not repay the debt. A sentence of eight months imprisonment wholly suspended on various conditions was imposed.

29. In The State v Sam Pipi (2004) PGNC 197, N2574, the prisoner was convicted of two counts, one for obtaining K500.00 by false pretences and the other for misappropriation of K500.00, the property of a financial institution. The prisoner was employed at the Police Headquarters at Konedobu, Port Moresby as the Accident Research Officer at its Traffic Section. He obtained a loan of K500.00 from the financial institution by completing a loan application form in the name of a police officer and having it signed with a forged signature. He had the loan application appear as if it were genuine and authentic and had been duly authorized by an authorized officer through the use of a false identification card bearing his facial image, but with false details including a false name, number and signature of the authorizing officer which he had produced using police facilities. A false Permanent Salary Variation Advise was produced and this enabled deductions of K135.00 to be made from the victim police officer's fortnightly salaries towards repayment of the loan. The prisoner only repaid K200.00 to the victim financial institution. The Police Department was also forced to recover the money for the victim police officer. The main aggravating factors there were; the degree of sophistication involved in producing the false identification card and execution of the crime; that he was an employee of the Police Department; and he had used police facilities to facilitate and commit the crime. For the count of obtaining money by false pretences, the prisoner was sentenced to one year imprisonment in hard labour and three months was to be suspended if the outstanding K300.00 were to be paid to the victim financial institution within twenty two days of sentence. For the count of misappropriation, the prisoner was sentenced to six months in hard labour. Both sentences were to be served concurrently.

30. In Jack Ostekal Metz, the prisoner falsely represented to the manager of a guest house in Madang that he was expecting payment in millions of Kina from the sale of Treasury Bills and the payment would be made by the Bank of Papua New Guinea directly into his bank account. Relying on this representation, the manager allowed the prisoner to obtain cash, was accommodated, had meals and drinks, took cigarettes and had extra guests at the guest house for a period of about eight months. The prisoner incurred a bill of K70,445.36 during this period which he was unable to settle when he checked out. A custodial sentence of three and half years imprisonment was imposed.

31. In Morris Yepin, the prisoner who was a correctional officer at Vanimo Correctional Institution gave the details of his account to family members of two prisoners for moneys to be remitted to those prisoners through his account. He received a sum of K300.00 and K200.00 respectively from the relatives of the two prisoners, but failed to deliver the said amounts to them. He was charged with two counts of wilfully making false promises. A non-custodial sentence of one year imprisonment was imposed on various conditions.

32. In The State v Gaibole Dickson Larry (2011) N4455, the prisoner was convicted for obtaining K500.00 cash from a friend in Madang town by a wilfully false promise with an intention to defraud. The money was never repaid. A sentence of 2 years imprisonment was imposed. The pre-sentence custody period was deducted and the balance of the sentence was suspended on terms.

33. In The State v Angela Tokonai (2012) N4679, the prisoner falsely pretended to the victim that she had sufficient funds in her bank account and drew a cheque for K15,865.50 to pay him for sea cucumber. The victim presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured. The prisoner failed to make good the debt. She was convicted for the offence of obtaining goods by false pretences. A sentence of three years was imposed and was suspended in its entirety on terms including repayment of the amount taken by instalments.

34. In The State v John Bolkun (2012) N4689, the prisoner was convicted for obtaining K165,000.00 from the State through the Department of Works. The prisoner falsely claimed that he built and owned a permanent dwelling house with an adjoining canteen and a snooker table along a section of the Highlands Highway in the Simbu Province which were destroyed by a company engaged in the rehabilitation program whilst carrying out maintenance work. A sentence of 3 years imprisonment was imposed and was suspended in its entirety on terms including an order to restitute K165,000.00 within one year of sentence.

35. In Joseph Sape, the prisoner was a pastor with the Christian Apostolic Fellowship Church of Papua New Guinea at its Hagen Tech. congregation, Mt. Hagen. He obtained an identification card bearing his facial image, but with the name of another person called Tum Eresi who was also a pastor and the National Superintendent of the Christian Apostolic Fellowship Church of Papua New Guinea. Pastor Tum Eresi was the principal signatory to the account of the church operated at the Australia & New Zealand Banking Group (PNG) Limited with two other pastors. After obtaining the false identification card, the prisoner, made out withdrawal forms in various amounts, forged the signatures of the three signatories and withdrew a total of K3,485.00 at the Mt. Hagen and Lae Branches of the Australia & New Zealand Banking Group (PNG) Limited. A sentence of three years imprisonment less the pre-sentence custody period was imposed and the balance of the sentence was suspended on various conditions including an order for full restitution.

36. In The State v Ivan Bob (2013) N5382, the prisoner was convicted for obtaining K5,025.00 from the victim by false pretences. The prisoner was doing some maintenance work for the National Housing Corporation and he told victim that the house he was repairing was going to be sold to him for K19,000.00. He then obtained from the victim K5,000.00 as part-payment of the house and a further K525.00 for maintenance work to be done on the house prior to being occupied. The money was never repaid. A sentence of 2 years imprisonment was imposed and the sentence was suspended in its entirety on terms.

37. In Larry Dickson, the prisoner, in a period of about four months, approached three victims in Mt. Hagen promising that he would pay them 100% interest on money they lent him. He promised that their money would be used to facilitate the transfer of investment made overseas by his late father which investments were in the millions. He was charged with three counts of obtaining goods by false pretences. He got cash in the sum of K15,962.00 from the first victim (first count). He got property worth K700.00 comprising cash in the sum of K600.00 and store goods worth K100.00 from the second victim (second count). He got property worth in excess of K1,000.00 comprising cash in the sum of K700.00, fuel worth K300.00 as well as three live chickens from the final victim (third count). A sentence of 3 years was imposed for the first count. Sentences of 1 year each were imposed for counts 2 and 3. These sentences were to be served consecutively. Applying the totality principle, an effective sentence of 3 ½ years was ordered to be served by the prisoner.

38. In considering an appropriate sentence for the prisoner, I will be guided by the tariff recommended under category 3 of the sentencing guidelines in Wellington Belawa and the starting point of 2½ years imprisonment.

39. The maximum penalty for the offence is usually reserved for the worst case. I do not consider that this case falls within the worst category for this particular offence: Goli Golu v The State (1979) PNGLR 653, Avia Aihi (No.3) v The State (1982) PNGLR 92 and Ure Hane v The State (1984) PNGLR 105.

40. In the exercise of my sentencing discretion, I am also guided by the trite legal principle that each case must be sentenced on its own set of facts and circumstances: Lawrence Simbe v The State (1994) PNGLR 38.

41. Taking into consideration all the peculiar circumstances of the present case, I consider that a sentence of 3 years imprisonment in hard labour will be appropriate.

42. The time the prisoner has spent in custody which is a total period of 2 months shall be deducted in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986.

43. The resultant length of sentence to be served will be 2 years and 10 months (the remaining term).

44. Incarceration will be at the Baisu Correctional Institution.

45. Should I suspend all or any part of the remaining term? The presentence report recommends a non-custodial sentence. The victim prefers that an order for restitution will be in order. I have considered the principles of suspending sentences propounded in Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola (1981) PNGLR 41, Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew (1986) PNGLR 91, The State v Frank Kagai (1987) PNGLR 320 and Doreen Liprin and I propose to suspend the remaining term on terms which I will set out later as it will; promote personal deterrence, reformation or rehabilitation of the prisoner; promote the repayment or restitution of the money stolen; and it will cause a certain degree of suffering to the prisoner because of her medical condition.

46. The following conditions shall apply:

1. an order for restitution is made whereby the prisoner shall within 6 months after the date of sentence pay to the victim the total sum of K12,000.00;

2. restitution shall be by 6 monthly instalments of K2,000.00 and the first instalment must be paid by or before 24th November 2014 and the rest monthly thereafter;

3. the prisoner shall enter into her own recognizance without surety to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the period of suspension;

4. the prisoner shall contact the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer within seventy hours after the passing of this sentence and thereafter as and when required by him or her;

5. the prisoner shall not change her residential address at the Mt. Hagen "T" School Compound, Mt. Hagen, Western Highlands Province unless she has given the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer reasonable notice of her intention to do so and the reason for the proposed change;

6. the prisoner shall not leave the Western Highlands Province without the leave of this Court during the period of suspension;

7. the prisoner shall, for the purpose of the Probation Act, allow a Probation Officer to enter her home during reasonable hours to monitor her compliance of these terms and to make such recommendations as the Probation Officer considers appropriate either for a variation or an implementation of these terms; and the Probation Service shall produce and furnish to the Court a report every three months until completion of the suspended sentence.

8. during the period of suspension, the prisoner shall provide free community service of two hours per day every government fortnight Friday at a public institution in Mt. Hagen to be determined and supervised by the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer.

9. the prisoner shall not consume alcohol or drugs;

10. if the prisoner breaches any one or more of these conditions, she shall be brought before the National Court to show cause why she should not be detained in custody to serve the remaining term.

47. A warrant shall issue forthwith to give effect to this sentence.

Sentenced accordingly.
_______________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Prisoner