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

State v Tiran (No. 2) [2018] PGNC 301; N7375 (20 July 2018)

N7375

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) 251 of 2017

THE STATE

V

TRACEY TIRAN
(No 2)

Waigani: Miviri AJ
2018 : 13^th 16^th 17th July

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Misappropriation – Trial – K500, 000.00 – tariff & range adherence to – likened to legislative powers – each case determined on its own facts – worst case – what is – well planned offence – no substance in repayment–custodial term appropriate–no basis for suspension – punitive & deterrent sentence.

Fact
Accused dishonestly applied to her own use K500, 000.00 the property of the State of Papua New Guinea

Held
Well thought out organized sham
Little to nil recovery of money.
Very serious offence
Prevalent offence
Punitive and deterrent sentence,

Cases:
The State v Tony [2018] PGNC 155; N7268
Public Prosecutor v Bruce Tardrew [1986] PGSC 10 [1986] PNGLR 91
The State v Belawa [1988-89] PNGLR 496
The State v Tiensten [2014] PGNC 224
The State Lawrence v Simbe [1994] PNGLR 38
The State v Kumbamong [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017
The State v Avia Aihi (No.3) [1982] PNGLR 92
The State v Goli Golu [1979] PNGLR 653
The State v Yaip Avini [1997] PNGLR 212
The State v Kaia [1995] PGNC 166 N1401
The State v Nae [1996] PGNC 34; N1474
The State v Kom [2009] PGNC 311; N6199
The State v Sylvanus Siembo & 2 others Unreported 30 May 2002 Cr 1220 of 2000.
The State v Allan Peter Utieng (Unreported Judgement delivered in Wewak on 23^rd November 2000) SCR 15 of 2000
The State v Eric Emmanuel Vele [2002] PGNC 93; N2252
Acting Public Prosecutor v Don Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC 564
The State v Zuvani [2004] PGNC 127; N2641
The State v Duk [2009] PGNC 247; N3924
The State v Daniel Mapiria [2004] Cr 1118 of 2000
The State v Jimmy Kendi (No2) [2007] PGNC 32; N3131
The State v Niso [2005] PGNC 26 ; N2930
The State v Haru [2014] PGNC 314; N5660
The State v Lawrence Pukali [2014] PGNC 16; N5560
The State v Lawrence Pukali [2014] PGNC 252; N5695
The State v Rokpa [1994] PNGLR 535;
The State v Liriope [1990] PGNC 58; N916

Counsel:

T. McPhee, for the State
D. Wapu, for the Defendant

SENTENCE

20^th July, 2018

1. MIVIRI AJ: This is the sentence of a woman who dishonestly applied to her own use K500, 000.00 the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. She was found guilty after trial.
   

Short facts

2. Prisoner conspired with two others between the 1^st day of June 2010 and the 25^th day of October 2011, representing to the State through the office of the Minister for National Planning and Monitoring Department honourable Paul Tientsin MP then that a Coconut project would be set up in Manus. Pursuant to that K500, 000.00 was paid by cheque to the accused’s company Sits Up Services Limited who deposited the money into that account and used the money between the 1^st day of March 2011 and 25^th October 2011 personally and to the use of others. The subject coconut project was not set up.
   

Charge

3. The charge is pursuant to section 383A of the Criminal Code Act of misappropriation of which reads;
   

“(1) A person who dishonestly applies to his own use or to the use of another person –

(a) Property belonging to another; or
(b) Property belonging to him, which is in his possession or control (either solely or conjointly with another person) subject to a trust, direction or condition or on account of any other person,

is guilty of the crime of misappropriation of property.

(2) An offender guilty of the crime of misappropriation of property is liable to imprisonment for five years except in any of the following cases when he is liable to imprisonment for ten years-

(a) where the offender is a director of a company and the property dishonestly applied is company property;

(b) where the offender is an employee and the property dishonestly applied is the property of his employer;

(c) where the property dishonestly applied was subject to a trust. Direction or condition;

(d) where the property dishonestly applied is of a value of K2000 or upwards.

(3) For the purposes of this section-

(a) property includes money and all other property real or personal, legal or equitable, including things in action and other intangible property;

(b) a persons application of property may be dishonest even although he is willing to pay for the property or he intends to restore the property afterwards or to make restitution thereof to the person to whom it belongs or to fulfil his obligations afterwards in respect of the property;

(c) a person’s application of property shall be taken not to be dishonest, except where the property came into possession or control as trustee or personal representative, if when he applies the property he does not know to whom the property belongs and believes on reasonable grounds that such person cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps;

(d)persons to whom property belongs to include the owner, any part owner, any person having a legal or equitable interest in or claim to the property and any person who. Immediately before the offender’s application of the property, had control of it. "

Allocutus

4. After trial and a finding of guilty on the charges the prisoner said, “Thank you your honour and everybody in this courtroom. Firstly I would like to apologise to this honourable court and to the People of this country and the Justice system. There was a process in place and this court has conducted its due process and has found me guilty of an appropriate sentence. And for that I humbly accept this court's decision. And I regardless of everything that's being presented I present to this court that I am sorry for any conduct on my part that showed to this court and to the people of this country that I misappropriated what belonged to the State and to the People in any way at all. I am not a murder and I don't effect people's personal lives or properties or even of the State. I've tried to I am not a liar naturally and I have tried to contribute to my community my family and kept myself in good conduct until this time. So I humbly seek this court consideration regardless if it be a custodial sentence or the consideration of a suspended sentence my family and I and my family stand behind me to restitute that money it is not ours State says it is not ours it did not belong to us we did not get it in a proper manner for that we respect the court's decision and whatever the court's decision is my family will do all their best to give back to the State what belonged to State. I thank everybody in this courtroom I thank you all for your time and I am sorry for wasting everybody's time. Thank you."
   
5. What is clear by her allocutus is that the prisoner has accepted that she is guilty of the crime of misappropriation. She now wants to pay back that money regardless of whatever sentence the court imposes upon her. But that money will be repaid in full back with her family. It is a moral responsibility not a legal one as they do not bear criminality in the matter in any way or form and therefore are not obliged to be bound in this relationship. " It is her wrong committed by her for which she stands before this court and it is her responsibility not her relatives or any other who are innocent of the conviction she has sustained. They will not bear her criminality for her that is not the law and has never been. In this regard therefore what has been placed in the presentence report by her relatives will not be considered." State v Tony [2018] PGNC 155; N7268.
   
6. K500, 000.00 is a lot of money for a family to pay without any real substance except pledge to pay. It was not taken initially when the matter arose back in 31^st October, 2012 when the information was just laid. Since that date up to today 20^th July, 2018 a period of six years nothing has been paid back to the State. No relative of the Prisoner has stepped forward of their own accord to make good and restitute the wrong. Just as the prisoner is about to be sentenced do they came forward with pledge not payment. In this manner it is no real genuine repayment or attempt to repay. In my view it will not be considered in that regard. Because there are no independent verification of the gist of what the prisoner contends. Figures on paper do not suffice because it is easy to put figures, words are easy, but merit and assets are different compared to determine real repayment. No independent verification has been put in the case of the vehicle proposed the registration papers and valuation by a reputed vehicle sales company. The same is so of the other properties proposed. There is no real value attached to the means assessment report in this regard. In Public Prosecutor v Bruce Tardrew [1986] PGSC 10 [1986] PNGLR 91 (2 April 1986) the court had this to say in, "suspension of sentence pursuant to Section 19 (6) of the Criminal Code is, or maybe appropriate in three broad categories. The categories are not exhaustive (1) where suspension will promote the personal deterrence, reformation, or rehabilitation of the offender; (2) Where suspension will promote the repayment or restitution of the Stolen money or goods; (3) Where imprisonment would cause an excessive degree of suffering to the particular offender, for example because of his bad physical or health." Prisoner here has not demonstrated by evidence that repayment will be secured if the sentence is suspended. Suspension of sentence is not an exercise of mercy but serving justice. In this regard there is no evidence of excessive degree of suffering to the prisoner because of medical condition set out by proper evidence. That is not the case.
   

Effect on victim

7. At the outset the K500, 000.00 was from financial assistance to churches and faith based organizations in their implementation of education and health services to the communities vote and not agriculture, The appropriation was in defiance of Budgetary management and the Public Finance Management Act. By this it was clear that what was attained was an organized sham to misappropriate government funds. Because the funds would not have come out without “inside help” those employees within the Department of National Planning and Monitoring who were facilitators for the payment to be made. This is clear from the audit report prepared by Archie Mai auditor of Provincial and local Level Government. And also from the prisoners admittance to payment of National Alliance Party and of Chris Hulape.
   
8. In passing sentence I take due consideration that organization in this way to systematically dishonestly misappropriate governments funds other than for their intended budgeted purpose is a very serious matter that must be deterred and punished with stern and punitive sentences. The prisoner as part of these scheme was very calculated and persistent in the commission of the offence. Creation of a shelf Company, “head without a body,” purposely to pose as a conduit and face to swindle public money was no light matter. It was clearly and well thought out scheme and in the way the offence was committed, it was no spur of the moment offence, nor an opportunity offence, but a well-orchestrated offence where each part of the crime created fell mechanically into playing its full part to giving maximum benefit to the offence. It showed that it was deeply rooted right into the heart of Government the then Minister Paul Tiensten now serving time in prison for another similar offence and by which conviction reflected and extending into the National Planning and Monitoring and Implementation Department primarily the then acting Secretary and immediate middle management Public Servants primarily discharged with signing execution and printing of the cheques shown out by the evidence of Archie Mai. Which benefitted the prisoner and cohorts at the misery of the majority because the subject money was earmarked for hospitals educational institution run by the Church’s and faith based organizations. Seriously and fundamental those who were subjects and who relied on Church run hospitals and educational Institutions right across the country were at the receiving end, they suffered because the majority of remote areas of the country were serviced by these Institutions of Church’s and Mission run. Majority of the population were at the bottom end of the minimum wage scale and depended on these services. By the actions of the prisoner and cohorts these majority were effectively denied these services drastically.
   

Maximum sentence.

9. The maximum sentence due for the offence upon the prisoner is 10 years imprisonment because the amount is K 500,000.00 by the call of section 383A (2) of the Code which is an amount above K2000. At the same time by the range and tariff set out in Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496 where the amount is K10, 000 to K40, 000, the appropriate suggested terms is 3 years imprisonment. K40, 000 to K150, 000 is 3 to 5 years imprisonment. The amount here is K500, 000.00 therefore would be certainly not 5 years by this tariff and range. It would be problematic as observed by the Deputy Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika in State v Tiensten [2014] PGNC 224 because beyond that amount will not fit into the tariff and range set out above. Respectfully I am in agreement with Sir Gibbs Salika that tariff and range stuffs out the intent and the Spirit of the legislature expressed in the penalty prescribed. It ought to be the outcome of the aggravation, mitigation and any extenuating circumstances to spell out sentence in a particular case and not necessarily dictated by tariff. This view holds in Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38 (2 March 1994) where in an appeal on conviction of murder the court held that each case must be determined on each own facts and circumstances. These are the views also in Kumbamong v The State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017 (29 September 2008) where it stated that the trial Judge has very wide discretion to impose appropriate sentence. And guidelines setting minimum and maximum penalties amount to legislating and restricting trial Judge's discretion. Therefore trial Judges are not bound to follow such guidelines. This was yet again another killing committed of a second wife or girlfriend.
   
10. In my view that is the correct position in law and no error will be committed in the subscription of the same here to determine an appropriate sentence of misappropriation. I therefore start with 10 years as the maximum sentence here against the prisoner for the misappropriation of K500, 000.00 of State funds. That is realistically the penalty she is looking at in view of the gravity of the offence. But as stated by Avia Aihi v The State (No.3) [1982] PNGLR 92 (5 March 1982) the maximum is reserved for the worst offence of its kind. So is this the worst case of misappropriation. And on what basis would one determine whether a case is the worst case of its kind.
    
11. In Avia Aihi (supra) the Supreme Court considered the maximum penalty of life imprisonment because it was a worst case of wilful murder committed by the appellant who had laid in ambush upon the court party as a view was taking place of the scene where the deceased had run over the husband of the appellant. Together with others she chased and fatally stabbed the deceased then pleaded guilty to wilful murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. She appealed against it but the Supreme Court viewed the offence as very serious and warranting the sentence imposed at first instance. What is clear is that a worst case of an offence will be a question of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. And in sentencing the basic principle is that the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 (14 December 1979).
    
12. This is clear in Yaip Avini v The State [1997] PNGLR 212 (15 July 1997) for K 100,000.00 misappropriated the court imposed 8 years imprisonment. He was a member of parliament for Finchafen and money was for the road in Hapohandong – Makini Road but the road was never built but defendant used the money personally. It was reasoned by the court in passing sentence that a breach of trust by a parliamentarian was higher than that of a departmental head:......unless drastic steps such as imposition of stiff penalties are taken against such persons, the ordinary people of this country will continue to be manipulated and will continue to suffer at the hand of the very people they have appointed or elected to assist them.”
    
13. In State v Paul Tiensten [2014] PGNC 224 ; N5563 (28 March 2014) the court imposed 9 years IHL ordering that 4 years of that sentence will be suspended if payment of K 10, 000,000.00 was made within 4 years of date of sentence. The balance of 5 years will be served at the Bomana jail.
    
14. In State v Kaia [1995] PGNC 166 N1401 (6 September 1995) he misappropriated K 94, 478. 31 whilst employed as an accounts supervisor by the Australia New Zealand Bank. None of that money was ever paid back. The court imposed 4 years imprisonment. In State v Nae [1996] PGNC 34; N1474 (18 September 1996) there were 19 counts of misappropriation totalling K 103, 587.71 by the prisoner for which the court imposed 4 years imprisonment. That was a scheme were money was collected supposedly for a housing project that the prisoner applied to his own use.
    
15. In State v Kom [2009] PGNC 311; N6199 (2 December 2009) prisoner pleaded guilty to misappropriating a total sum of K 3,780,000.00 property of the State. He posed as one Simon Wapo made out claims that were processed by Department of Finance and Treasury which were paid into an account at a commercial bank cleared and he withdrew and used the money personally. He was sentenced to 8 years IHL as there was no presentence report before the court.
    

Use of money

16. In the State v Sylvanus Siembo & 2 others Unreported 30 May 2002 CR 1220 of 2000 the court per Justice Sevua imposed 6 years IHL of which 3 years was to be suspended on condition that the prisoner enters into a recognizance in the sum o K5000 surety (not cash) to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 2 years following discharge from prison. The relevant and material facts were not guilty pleas were entered by the three Accused who were alleged to have misappropriated K100, 000.00 from the State, which was intended for the construction of a road by the Momboro Business Group (MBG) and was instead directed to the account of a private company where it was intended the money would earn interest. Accused were first time offenders had large families did not benefit personally from the use of the money and that the money with interest was repaid to MBG. However the offence involved misappropriation of public funds. Partial suspension as money was not used personally. Here prisoner used the money including applying it to the use of others. The evidence consistent with the law is that she gave various amounts to various people and also used that money personally. Partial suspension will not be falling in her case considering.
    

Effect on offender

17. Prisoner lost her job at petromin as result of being charged with this offence. She is now destined for her criminal conduct imminently to serve time in jail. And by that fact will be apart from her husband and children. And will have a criminal record on her life.
    

Restitution

18. Prisoner had no means upon which the K500, 000. 00 of the State will be repaid. She has not paid any part of that sum since 31st October 2012 when the information was laid. The presentence and the means assessment do not disclose any means upon which the prisoner could draw to pay off that money. She has attached a list of names with figures or sums of money along side. These are pledges without any real substance on the basis of which restitution is guaranteed. There is no liquid cash and properties to be converted to cash confirmed either by valuation and registration papers for instance the motor vehicle. Restitution is not tangible nor is it viable considering. The words of the means assessment sum that the proposition to get relatives to repay is still out of air and recommendation is not in favour of a non custodial term. And the presentence report recommended against fundamentally because prisoner had no means if it was considered. It was not an option given for the prisoner in view of the gravity of the offence set out above. Presentence report also views that the gravity of the offence outweighs any possibility of recommendations for suspended sentence.
    

Prisoners History

19. In this respect it is important to set out what the Supreme Court said in Allan Peter Utieng v The State (Unreported Judgement delivered in Wewak on 23^rd November 2000) SCR 15 of 2000:
    

“An offender should consider his background first before committing any offence. Implicit in that is the fact that, it is a little too late to talk about an offender’s personal background including the needs of his family concerns once he is proven guilty according to law. His background and concerns should have little or no weight against the need to impose a sentence or punishment that best befits an offence he has committed in the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed.”

Here the prisoner is 47 years old married with 12 children grown except for 3 aged 19, 17, and 12 who are all resident at the family home at section 97 Lot 36 Gull Street Waigani. The husband works with Pogera Gold Mine and joins monthly field break. She is educated here in Port Moresby attaining grade 10 at Gordons High School 1987 continuing to Goroka Technical College completing secretarial Studies in 1990. And worked with MRDC until 2002 when she resigned and went home to the village. She is a first offender.

20. The gravity of the offence outweighs her personal background. Comparatively the case of State v Eric Emmanuel Vele [2002] PGNC 93; N2252 is converse of the present. Prisoner there took the initiative to make repayment of K 11,091.23 even before the formal orders of court and had a balance remaining of K4, 008.77 to settle the money stolen from the Port Moresby Westpac Bank Limited where he was employed as Supervisor international Bank centre. And the presentence report recommended probation with community supervision which the court acceded to in view of that being so in the light of Acting Public Prosecutor v Don Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC 564 (27 August 1998) that criminal sentencing is a community responsibility. The Sentence there was 2 and a half years suspended on very strict conditions of Probation. The circumstances of that case do not par out with the present. There has been no repayment since the inception of this matter up to today. She did not take the initiative to repay and has not shown any factors as with Vele’s case (supra).
    
21. In State v Zuvani [2004] PGNC 127; N2641 (25 August 2004) prisoner pleaded guilty to transferring paperless K22, 685.43 over a period of time property of her employer Bank of South Pacific Limited into a relatives account where she used the save card to withdraw and use the money. She had almost made complete and full restitution of that money back to the bank. The court considered and imposed 4 years wholly suspended on seven conditions on probation attaching.
    
22. In State v Duk [2009] PGNC 247; N3924 (15 July 2009) prisoner was an accountant of Wau Microbank. He dishonestly obtained and used K32, 800 in customer’s deposits that he applied to his own use contrary to section 383A of the Code. He never paid back any amount of that money. The court considered and imposed 4 years IHL none of which was suspended given that he had not repaid nor was there any facts to impose otherwise. He was a graduate from the Divine Word University with a Bachelor of Business Studies. The amount there is lower than the present.
    
23. In State v Daniel Mapiria [2004] CR 1118 of 2000, 9 years IHL imposed was wholly suspended for the misappropriation of K3.188 million from the State when prisoner counter signed 41 cheques payable in cash over 10 months applied to the benefit of Registrar of the Board Mr. Aisa. Prisoner was 54 years old in poor medical condition with three diseases likely to rise if not properly managed in prison so court imposed the term above with conditions including restitution to the state of K1 million within 18 months 5 years community service and good behaviour and 6 monthly probation report. Prisoner here is 47 years old younger and does not have any condition in health similar. She also directly benefitted and also gave others benefit out of that crime.
    
24. In State v Jimmy Kendi (No2) [2007] PGNC 32; N3131 (17 April 2007) prisoner obtained K4, 298, 037.30 claiming that the State during the Bougainville crisis had unlawfully used his machines and equipment of his company. He was helped by corrupt officers in the Department of Finance & Treasury and also Defence. He was found guilty firstly of false pretence and secondly of misappropriation of the amount set out above. He was sentenced to 4 years IHL for the first and 9 years IHL cumulative for the second. An effective term of 9 years IHL. Comparably the amount here is less than Kendi’s case which also has the conviction of false pretence.
    
25. In the State v Niso [2005] PGNC 26; N2930 (15 November 2005) prisoner was found guilty of four charges of conspiracy, forgery, fraudulent uttering of a false document and misappropriation of K500, 000. 00 from the bank of Papua New Guinea. The court considered as aggravation that substantial amount of money belonged to his employer. He was a senior clerk in the central bank and his duties involved handling of large amounts of cash. It was a responsible position upon which he had a duty to the bank and its customers. And therefore a very serious breach of trust. But it was not likened to a director or a manager but was an opportunity crime. There were no plans and was successfully committed because of the role played by accomplices. But prisoner played a very critical role. And it was called that the punishment fit the crime. The court imposed 3 years 6 months for the first count, 1 year 3 months for the second, 1 year 3 months for the third, and 7 years 6 months for the fourth. The first second and third were to be served concurrently with the fourth hence it was 7 years 6 months IHL imposed. Time in custody of 8 months was deducted to leave the balance of 6 years 10 months IHL. Here there was a very well set out sham planned very well and executed to maximum benefit to the prisoner of government funds. In that regard this offence was more serious when compared.
    
26. In State v Haru [2014] PGNC 314; N5660 (20 February 2014) prisoner was found guilty of false pretence and misappropriation of land of a sports club sold to a third party. He offered restitution but was not done. He was sentenced to 8 years IHL for misappropriation of K2, 628, 825.18 of the Kone Tigers Rugby Football League Club. Four (4) years was to be suspended if he made full restitution. Certainly that is not the amount involved here but it shows that the larger the amount the higher the sentence and more so where there are no opportunities to restitution of that money. The prisoner here bears similar there are no real means to restitution. And therefore a custodial sentence is posed in view.
    
27. In the State v Lawrence Pukali [2014] PGNC 16; N5560 (28 March 2014) K405, 600.00 was undertaken to be paid by the prisoner in exchange for 2,535 grams of Gold at K160.00 per gram. Prisoner promised to pay K200, 000.00 first payment and assured the victim Chris Wang Bubsep that he would deposit that money into his account but did not. Victim confronted him and prisoner wrote a Bank South Pacific cheque for the sum of K170, 000.00 drawn from his business account with that bank. It was dishonoured and not paid. Victim demanded the return of the Gold but was never done. He was charged with three counts of wilful false promise pursuant to section 404 (1) (a), forgery section 462 (3) (b) and misappropriation under section 383A to which the court returned guilty verdicts on the first and third charges. A not guilty verdict was held in respect of the third. The court imposed 2 years ILL for false pretence and 5 years imprisonment for the second, both to be served concurrently, effective head sentence of 5 years IIL because he was suffering from diabetics. He never paid back the gold or made any restitution State v Lawrence Pukali [2014] PGNC 252; N5695 (28 March 2014).
    

Issue

28. What is an appropriate sentence for the prisoner?
    

Findings of Fact

29. I find as a fact that the Accused with Chris Hulape and Minister then Paul Tiensten were part of a sham to misappropriate or dishonestly apply to their use or to the use of others government funds.
    
30. I find as a fact that to give root to this accused set up a shelf company or a face without a body company Sits Up Services Limited. Which had as a fact no assets no liabilities no employees either permanent or casual except for two directors with a project of K500, 000.00 to implement with no company accountant no accounts books either cash book or journal to record and upkeep the company accounts which are not the records intended before court in defence.
    
31. I further find as a fact that a project proposal “Sapulau Integrated Coconut Processing” was submitted to Minister Paul Tiensten on the 3^rd June 2010 received by the minister’s office on the 11^th June 2010 who footnoted approval on the 20^th December 2010 in breach of the law.
    
32. I further find as a fact that in breach of law and financial management a cheque number 000048 dated the 1^st March 2011 of K500, 000. 00 from the Department of National Planning and Monitoring drawing account 4311-6561 was addressed payable to Sits Up Limited P. O. Box 63 Lorengau Manus.
    
33. I further find as a fact this cheque was deposited into the account at Bank of South Pacific named Sits Up Services Limited account number 1001531025 and the accused made withdrawals and used the money personally and to the use of others not for the expenditure of the project proposal approved on the 20^th December 2010 by the Minister Paul Tiensten.
    
34. I further find as a fact that the accused was dishonest given all the findings of fact and evidence set out above in law.
    
35. Accordingly given all these findings I sentence the prisoner Tracy Tiran of Pak Island Lorengau Manus Province guilty of misappropriating the sum of K 500, 000. 00 the property of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea between 1^st March 2011 and the 25^th day of October 2011 to 6 years IHL.
    
36. This was public money that was allocated for a specific purpose not executed and therefore misappropriation Rokpa v The State [1994] PNGLR 535; State v Liriope [1990] PGNC 58; N916 (1 October 1990). A deterrent punitive sentence is called for in view of all set out above and the proportionate sentence given in all the circumstances is 6 years IHL and I so impose that upon the prisoner.
    
37. Six (6) years IHL less time in custody. Bail refunded forthwith.
    

Ordered Accordingly

__________________________________________________________________Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State

Punau & Co Lawyers: Lawyer for the Defendant