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

State v Turubat [2016] PGNC 402; N6724 (29 November 2016)

N6724

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 1787 of 2016

THE STATE

–V-

RODNEY BINTO TURUBAT

Daru: Koeget, AJ
2016: 23^rd and 24^th November

CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence – Guilty to stealing (simplicitor) under section 372 (1) of the Criminal Code Act – First time offender – sentence wholly suspended - Section 19 of the Criminal Code Act does not apply to sentences under section 37 2(1)of the Code. Pre-trial custodial period substituted as sentence.

Cases Cited:
Nil

Counsel:

D. Mark, for the State
G. Tine, for the Accused

29^th November, 2016

1. KOEGET AJ: INTRODUCTION: The accused is charged that on 28^th of July, 2016 at Daru, stole from New Century supermarket Cash Register manned by Lausi Memafu, a cashier, cash in the sum of K260.00 the property of New Century Ltd. The charge is brought under section 372(1) CCA.

FACTS:

2. On 12^th June, 2015 between 12:00 o’clock and 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the accused went to the New Century Supermarket in Daru. He approached till No. 2 at check-out counter, and stood behind the cashier Lausi Memafu. He reached out to the open till and took out the sum of K260-00 and ran out of the shop. He ran towards Maru Marine and Dwyer Point closely pursued by the security guards and some bystanders.

3. As he ran in front of Maru Marine gate, he dropped the cash of K260.00 to the ground and only K160-00 was recovered by the security guards but the sum of K100-00 is still missing.

ARRAIGNMENT:

4. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted accordingly.

ISSUE:

5. The issue for the court to determine is what is the appropriate sentence to impose upon the prisoner.

LAW:

Section 372(1) of the Criminal Code Act.

“Any person who steals anything capable of being stolen is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to this section, imprisonment for term not exceeding three years.”

Section 19 Criminal Code Act - Construction to Provisions of Code as to punishments.

“(1) In the construction of this code, it is to be taken that, except when it is otherwise expressly stated ----,“

6. It is clear that section 19 of the Code does not apply to sentences under section 372(1) of the Act. So the court in this case is to impose sentence in the penalty provision of section 372 of the Code.

Allocatus:

“My maternal uncle usually chases me out of his house at Boze Corner here in Daru town. He tells me, I am different blood. Such treatment of him continued from childhood till date of commission of offence. I was drunk when I committed the offence to show dissatisfaction to uncle and family members”.

Personal Particulars of Prisoner:

7. He is 25 years of age and is a bachelor. He resides with his uncle and mother at Boze Corner in Daru.

Education:

8. He attends Vocational Training Centre in Daru and is in Grade 8 this year. He was still attending classes when he committed the offence. There is possibility that he will re-register at school next year.

9. He is in Electrical studies – 1^st year in 2016. He has a brother and no sister and he is the first born in the family. He has no prior conviction and he is a first time youthful offender. He pleaded guilty to the charge and saved court’s valuable time. He admits what he did was stupid thing to do and gained no benefit from commission of the offence.

10. He was assaulted by security guards when apprehended. He has been in custody for 3 months.

SENTENCE:

11. The prisoner is sentenced to be imprisoned for 3 months in hard labour. The 3 months pre-trial custodial period is substituted for the sentence. He has served the sentence so he is discharged from custody forthwith.
______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer of Accused